(Date Posted:25/03/2006 03:26:55)
" The Family Wales "
Some of the most honest and telling stories about the " Wales Family " were told by Stephen P. Barry, former valet to
H.R.H. The Prince of Wales . Mr Barry now himself deceased, here are things spoken of by him.
In the early days whilst Diana was still teaching at the nursery school and I was sneaking her out of the back door of
her apartment helping her to dodge the press for meetings with Prince Charles she spoke of wanting four children. A
very important factor that the wife of the heir to the throne wants to ensure the continuance of the Royal line. Diana
has done so with Princes William and Harry. The princess however did not enjoy pregnancy telling me that "If men had
the babies, there wouldn't be any! " The end result of the morning sickness and not being able to wear fashionable
outfits she loves and adores her role as Mother which is often of conflict in a lifestyle that necessitates nannies whilst
she as a public figure performs her numerous Royal engagements.
Prince Charles loathed his schooling particularly at "Gordonstoun" in Scotland and is determined his sons will not
follow him there. He was the first heir to the throne to ever go to school, the Queen being educated by a governess in
the palace. Princess Diana though has the greatest say about what happens to them as she has already broken
through generations of Royal protocol. The Queen by example would never arrive at the nursery unannounced,
ensuring her children were clean and it neat and tidy for her arrival. Princess Diana pops in and out of the nurseries at
"Kensington Palace" and "Highgrove" all the time. Her bedroom within listening distance of both and the first wail from
either of her sons and she is out of bed to comfort them, Prince Charles has tried to get her to delegate more of this
responsibility to her staff but she will have none of it saying " A mother's arms are more comforting than anyone else's.
"
Prince Charles himself even bathing his sons, he having rarely seen his father who was more inclined to write to his
children than visit the nursery. Charles had adored his nanny Mabel Anderson, a traditionalist, old fashioned and with
common sense and would have liked her to be nanny for his sons but Diana was determined to have a modern,
unstarched nanny trained in up-to -date methods and so employed for the job was Nanny Barnes. This arrangement
not without problems as Diana wants and insists upon total involvement in every aspect of her children's upbringing
and nannies being traditionally accustomed to total authority in the nursery. ( Nanny Barnes eventually losing her
position, Diana feeling eldest son William having grown too fond of her. )
In the summer of 1982 the rumours that Princess Diana was unhappy were quite true, everyone at the palace worried
that the fairy-tale romance was going to collapse. Divorce unthinkable, there was no question that Prince Charles
would do his duty but nervousness at what the Princess herself might do. The feeling among the public was that she
had made a terrible mistake and could not stand the pressure of being Royal. In truth it was the Prince who felt that he
had perhaps married someone who was not equipped to deal with the job.
The Princess was not well disposed to people who had been part of his previous bachelorhood lifestyle and though I
included resented her attitude, it was a natural one...she wanted the Prince to be all hers with the past finished and
done. Many of our duties for him in the past were no longer valid, I for example had been paid to see that he was
properly dressed, his meals arranged, things that now his new young bride wanted to take control of, my job as I'd
known it had ended so I decided to resign. The Prince was miserable seeing things change and the Princess was
difficult, often throwing tantrums determined to have her own way. ( Diana felt Barry should leave after her marriage to
Charles because of his complicity in shielding Charles's relationship with Camilla and his powerful influence over him,
the twelve year stint as valet, keeper of secrets and general adviser to the Prince.)
Initially the Princess finding losing her personal freedom a trial, not being able to go off to the hairdresser when she
liked but rather an appointment made for he to come to her and not being able to go out alone. I recall taking her to
her car, a red mini - metro and as she climbed into the driving seat, the door on the other side opening and one of the
prince's policemen Paul Officer joining her and Diana saying to him .." It's alright, I can manage " and being told by him
.." Sorry, we're part of your life now! " It was not long after this that Paul resigned as the Princess had found him too
protective and fatherly towards her! With the public Diana is superb, a natural, she always looks wonderful and her
genuine warmth and liking for people is evident leading Prince Charles to comment .." I might as well stay in the car,
they've all come to see her." ......
Prince Charles had been anxious about her in the early days and he had been right to be, they were desperately
lonely times for her and particularly he going off on his last solo tour of Australia newly engaged, a nineteen year old
in a totally different environment to the one she'd been accustomed to living with her flat-mates in her apartment. In
the palace her company being her portable Sony Walkman! Diana even in "Buckingham Palace" where she lived prior
to the marriage rarely saw the Queen uninvited to join her and Prince Philip for tea or to meals, being served hers
reheated on warming plates having been brought to her from the kitchens through the maze of corridors.
Since these revelations by Mr. Barry it is common knowledge that Diana was aware before marrying him that Charles
loved his mistress, now his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall more than her and had expected to retain Camilla as his
mistress and a compliant Diana as his wife! However, for Diana born into a different generation, a more modern
woman than he had bargained for, this was in her eyes unacceptable ... Charles, Camilla, Prince Philip and even the
Queen herself had got it so wrong, infidelity would not be tolerated silently by " Diana, Princess of Wales! "
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
(Date Posted:17/10/2006 02:50:50)
(Obviously written by someone who thinks for themselves and in the know!)
I work as (among other things) a free-lance journalist. It took me about a week or so after the tragic car crash which
took the lives of Princess Diana, companion Dodi Fayed and driver Henri - Paul to piece together that we, the public,
and apparently the press, were being completely manipulated and lied to about the so-called accident. I'm really only
scratching the surface of this truly shocking story, as I don't have extensive financial resources to devote to
investigating this story in any serious depth, which it absolutely demands. There are a tremendous number of very
troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by
authorities or by the major news media.
The London Times on Sept. 21 1997 ran a crucial story which has turned things around substantially; it reports that a
highly credible witness, a British attorney, clearly saw another vehicle leaving the crash scene at very high speed in an
obvious getaway. This dovetails with mounting material evidence from the crash site proving another vehicle (not
paparazzi!) impacted the Mercedes in the tunnel and clearly instigated the disaster -- at least in part. Officials also
said pointedly that they want to know why "bodyguard" Trevor Rees-Jones fastened his seatbelt not long before the
crash. The implication is that he knew something was about to happen -- something potentially life-threatening.
Professional bodyguards almost never wear seat belts as they must be ready for any eventuality at any time. The
man's background is British military intelligence. The mass media really need to realize they have been played by
some real masters of the art regarding what was definitely an intentional, meticulously planned and executed murder.
The press urgently needs to start asking the great number of questions regarding this mysterious fatal car accident. It
is a certainty beyond any doubt that the crash that ostensibly killed Princess Diana was an intentional murder and the
reporting of the events preceding, during and after the tragedy has been thoroughly manipulated by intelligence
agencies.
Incredibly, after the major news noted in the first paragraph above, of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony
which had caused investigators to completely reevaluate the case, all mention of the latest turn of events seems to
have disappeared from the news. Why haven't Her Majesty's Secret Service, British Intelligence, Interpol, Scotland
Yard, etc. shown apparently the slightest interest in investigating what is less and less likely to have been an
"accident"? Even the merest indication that it might not have been an accident should have triggered massive
investigation by those agencies. The fact that there was none is just unbelievable, especially in light of the latest news
I mentioned. It might not be stretching things too far to speculate that itself strongly suggests conspiracy and cover-up
at rather high levels. There are far too many holes in the official story. The cover-up is relying on the unprecedented
and quite unbelievable lack of media scrutiny of the events. It's just totally outrageous that this wretched murder could
be contorted, spin-doctored and finessed into an being accepted as an "accident" by the whole world. That is almost
more disturbing than the assassination itself!
It's been pointed out to me that due to the extreme strictures of Britain's Official (National) Secrets Act, certain topics
can be designated as matters of national security of which any published (or public?) discussion is completely
forbidden ; if this order is violated, the "offenders" can be immediately incarcerated, their publication facilities etc.
closed/dismantled; further, if any mention whatsoever of those actions (i.e. against the publisher of the forbidden
information) is made by any other publisher, the publishers of that subsequent information are likewise subject to the
exact same penalty; thereby enforcing press censorship of the very fact of press censorship! I imagine that this
extraordinarily restrictive situation would impinge severely upon the ability of any news organisation to deal with certain
matters at all. According to other terms of this National Secrets Act, any publisher/news organisation who receives
information, publication of which would violate the previously noted terms, is obliged to inform British authorities of that
fact -- as well as the source of the information. It's been further pointed out to me that MI5 and MI6 are literally sworn
to protect and uphold the monarchy and the Royal family above all else and at all costs; thereby the "termination" of
Diana was seen by those designated operatives enjoined to carry it out as a necessity to ensure the continued rule of
monarchy -- an absolute necessity.
I'm not suggesting that the situation in the U.S. is any better; perhaps superficially there is more of an illusion of
freedom in that regard. However in terms of what is actually "on the books" I can't think of any comparable law
effective in the U.S. ... yet. Of course the NSA, CIA, etc. pretty much write their own program regarding such matters in
the U.S., and if the actual information which the public receives through the media is completely manipulated anyway,
the end result is pretty much the same. The method in the U.S. seems also to involve more sinister threats and
certainly malicious and/or deadly actions to enforce secrecy on such (top-secret) matters. At least one journalist (not
me) here has been warned by certain CIA operative to back off the Princess Diana story, or he may "get his fingers
burned." The UK law noted ensures more direct and complete control with much less chance of leakage regarding
such state secrets however. Very unfortunate either way. No matter what, we can honor Diana's memory by standing
strong against the forces that in all likelihood viciously took Diana's life. Diana Spencer consciously set out to use her
position of great influence to counteract many of the negative and bitter results of such international policies
implemented globally by just such forces, and it seems because of that, in addition to several other "reasons", she was
assassinated.
An article in Sunday's London Times of September 21st 1997 reports that there is a highly credible eyewitness to the
events immediately after the crash in Paris' Pont de L'Alma tunnel which took the lives of Dodi Fayed, driver Henri -
Paul and ostensibly Princess Diana at 12:20 AM on August 31st 1997. The witness, British attorney Gary Hunter,
distinctly observed another vehicle fleeing the scene at very high speed. This brings the investigation of the tragic
events full circle: back to a number of similar initial eyewitness accounts which were totally ignored in a series of rush-
to-judgment scenarios. Quite noteworthy also was the fact that Mr. Hunter's testimony had been given to the Fayed's
legal team not long after the crash, and was duly passed on to French authorities by them; information which
authorities apparently did not pursue and which was not publicized.
This news as well as corroborating evidence Paris police now have from pieces of wreckage found at the scene which
are not from Diana's Mercedes, have abruptly forced the entire incident and all relevant preceding and following
events to be immediately and completely reevaluated and reexamined as non-accidental-- in fact, as a probable
homicide or assassination. There are a large number of very troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about
this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by various authorities or by the major news media. Why haven't
Her Majesty's Secret Service, British intelligence and other appropriate agencies shown any interest in investigating
what is less and less likely to have been an "accident"? Even the merest indication that it might not have been an
accident should have triggered massive scrutiny by those agencies. A great many such indications will now be brought
forth. Impartial skepticism as well as sincere yet non-gullible open mindedness are prerequisites for getting as close as
possible to the truth, to the heart of any matter.
In addition, a resistance towards jumping to conclusions regarding potential "conspiracies" behind every significant or
unusual event should be balanced by an unwillingness to immediately and unquestioningly accept the officially
authorized versions of such events, especially those from which certain of the "powers that be" stand to gain
significantly, and in particular any such events which involve the unexpected and/or somewhat puzzling death of a
major world figure. One of the most blatantly suspicious of the great number of very troubling inconsistencies in the
"official" version of what supposedly happened that night in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel concern the physical and mental
condition of Trevor Rees-Jones, claimed to be a personal bodyguard of Dodi Fayed's and the only one in the car now
still alive.
Trevor Rees-Jones, although very badly injured, was not killed. He could offer invaluable insight into what actually
occurred during that brief ride which ended with such horror and violence. If indeed there were malicious or unusual
events precipitating the crash which Trevor Rees-Jones was uninvolved in or which he had come to regret any such
involvement in, or even malicious actions after the crash, perhaps en route to or at the hospital, then Trevor Rees-
Jones' testimony could be extremely important. Although early reports said that his face, tongue and lips were severely
lacerated and his condition extremely grave, a news story on September. 8th 1997 said that Trevor Rees-Jones was
recovering reasonably well, and had told his mother how terribly upset he was about the accident, how guilty he felt,
but that there was nothing he could have done to prevent what happened. Obviously the man was aware that a very
serious tragedy had occurred, and the definite sense conveyed by the story is that he was aware Diana (and Dodi)
were dead. It also says that he has suffered no brain damage of any kind. Amazingly enough, 4 days after the news
item I just noted, another news item said that the poor fellow's hold on consciousness was so slight and that he was so
physically, mentally and emotionally distressed that he had not yet been told about the death(s)!, and, one would
think, by extrapolation, had not yet been told about the crash!? Incontestably, there is funny business afoot here.
A third news item really clinches the setup, and shows without doubt that not only is the news being manipulated, but
also that this man's mind is being intentionally damaged and his memory tampered with. The article says that Trevor
Rees-Jones may not even be able to remember the crash, because his mind is so messed up, but mainly from
"anesthetics" and other drugs administered at the hospital! The article also quoted his mother, who 4 days ago says
she was told by her son how badly he felt about what happened, as now saying that ..."he's unconscious most of the
time...he's not fit enough to be told ..." It sums up by stating that Trevor Rees-Jones may never be able to remember
the events preceding the tragedy, and judging by the effects of the current "treatment" being given Trevor Rees-
Jones, he will never be deemed fit enough and thus will never be told! (Perhaps it might jog his memory too much).
Predictably, a September 18th 1997 news bulletin says that the judge investigating the deadly crash found Trevor
Rees-Jones had no recollection whatsoever of the events preceding and during the crash! This was clearly a result of
the mind-altering drugs administered at Salpetriere Hospital, which effectively erased his previously intact memory of
the events! This is according to the hospital's own sources. It is obvious from reading these four news stories in
chronological order that they are thoroughly contradictory.
Someone isn't even covering their tracks at all on this. Maybe they just figure that no one will notice, and if we do, so
what? In another report on recent developments in the investigation dated September 21st 1997, London's Sunday
Mirror said investigators want to know what caused bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones to fasten his seat belt shortly
before the crash, as if he knew what was coming! Bodyguards, who need to be always ready for action, do not usually
wear their seat belts while on duty. The background and status of Trevor Rees-Jones is notably obscure; he has an
extensive career in military intelligence (in the Gulf War and North Ireland) and subsequent secretive activities as a
(supposedly) private citizen. Trevor Rees-Jones was initially reported to be Diana's bodyguard, yet later reports
placed him as an employee of the Fayed organization, perhaps a sleeper agent previously planted in that position to
be called upon when needed. It would seem Trevor Rees-Jones was aware that something was about to happen to the
vehicle -- something life-threatening. As a professional bodyguard Trevor Rees -Jones' responsibility was to ensure
the safety of Princess Diana and her companion at all costs. For example, if driver Henri - Paul was so drunk and out
of control throughout most of the ride as has been claimed, why didn't Trevor Rees-Jones do his job and reach over
and turn off the ignition ? Once again, little in the prevailing "official" version if events fits.
It is literally impossible for driver Henri - Paul to have been anywhere near as drunk as is being claimed when he took
the wheel, as well as under the influence Prozac and other medication too. The prescriptions Henri - Paul had and a
statement from the doctor who wrote them should be made public immediately. This man's name and reputation have
been completely demolished and he's no longer around to defend himself. After the original attempt to implicate the
"paparazzi" directly in causing the crash failed to stick, it seems it fell to the late Henri - Paul to become the scapegoat.
News published worldwide that Henri -Paul was a recovering and/or latent and/or occasional alcoholic was just that to
all who knew him -- news? Not one of the friends, associates and family questioned by investigators considered him to
be an alcoholic or suffering from clinical depression. Video footage taken shortly before the tragedy at the Hotel Ritz
shows him in fact to be in full command of himself, and no one in the entourage noticed that he was inebriated before
he took the wheel.
The mother of Princess Diana's driver said in an interview that her son did not suffer from alcoholism or depression
despite tests showing he had drugs used to treat those illnesses and high blood-alcohol levels in his system. "My son
wasn't an alcoholic," the daily "Le Figaro" quoted Gisele Paul as saying of her son Henri. "Can one imagine that the
Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed would have agreed to get in a car driven by someone who is drunk?" " Henri - Paul
was not depressive and behaved perfectly! "the paper quoted his mother as saying. A Paris friend of Henri -Paul's,
Claude Garrec, has described him as a "Bon Vivant" but "in no way depressed, just overworked." Paris police have
been attempting to establish how Henri - Paul came to have a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit. The man's
background and his demeanor both the night of the tragedy and in general was not that of an alcoholic.
Just because alcohol is found in somebody's blood post mortem, does not indicate how it got there. Very likely the
police have released this information because there are too many troubling inconsistencies. By making this public they
are letting the evidence either be challenged or corroborated, and the consensus among Henri - Paul's friends, family
and associates is that he was definitely not a heavy drinker. The police themselves have offered no scenario
explaining how Henri - Paul's blood alcohol level could have been that high, and they haven't made public any
information on who prescribed the antidepressants he was on, if indeed anyone did. If there is such irrefutable
evidence supporting the drunk driver theory, one would think that the royals or the Spencer family would have made a
major public statement against drunk driving, or decided to use a portion of the money accumulating in the Diana
Memorial fund to campaign against drunk driving.
For instance In the US, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has already begun using a new slogan for their campaign:
"Drunk Drivers Have Taken Too Many Little Princesses Already". Over the weekend, Laurence Pujol, a former
girlfriend of Henri - Paul, told the French daily newspaper "Le Figaro" that during the five years they lived together
Henri - Paul was only a moderate drinker and was not clinically depressed. In fact she was quoted as saying "I'll
remember someone who lived life to the full. His self-control was very impressive -- he loved to be in charge of the
situation and had great plans. His professional conscientiousness was irreproachable." Pujol said she had never
known him to take any medicines, nor seen him drink alone. He had also recently been to see his personal doctor,
Diane Beaulieu D'Ivernois, and received a routine medical for his pilot's license. The doctor wouldn't discuss her
patient's medical background, but journalists obtained transcripts of his medical record going back nearly 20 years. He
had undergone regular tests on his urine, reflexes, coordination and emotional state and no problems had been
indicated. Laboratory reports said that liver samples showed conclusively that Henri -Paul was not a habitual heavy
drinker.
Alexander Wingfield, a bodyguard employed by the Fayed organization who was protecting the Princess and her
companion, Dodi Fayed, told the American ABC television network that he was with Henri - Paul for two hours before
the accident and nothing indicated that he was drunk. "He looked and behaved perfectly sober to me. Over a period of
about two hours, I was within a few feet of him on several occasions and never smelled drink on his breath". "Henri -
Paul drove well... He was a professional driver as far as I could see," Wingfield recalled about his ride into Paris from
Le Bourget airport hours before the crash in one of the backup vehicles, a Land Rover driven by Henri - Paul.
Joel Fleury, the owner of Le Grand Colbert, a local restaurant where he often dined with friends, told reporters, "He
was a straightforward guy. He appreciated good French cuisine and enjoyed a drink but I have never seen him drunk.
When he came with his girlfriend she would have a glass of champagne. He would just sip Perrier water." Henri - Paul
dropped his passengers off at approximately 7 PM and returned to the hotel Ritz at 10.08 PM after receiving a call
around 10 PM on his mobile telephone. By the time he returned a large pack of paparazzi was outside the front of the
hotel waiting for Diana and Dodi to leave. Between 10.30 PM and midnight Henri - Paul wandered out of the front
entrance and started chatting to one of the paparazzi with whom he was acquainted. He wanted advice on which flash
to buy for a new camera he had recently purchased. Henri - Paul seemed "very relaxed", according to the
photographer, who had met him many times before. Over the next hour or so Henri - Paul came out repeatedly to talk
to the photographers. As noted, video shot during this period by a Ritz security camera shows a man who appears
fully sober.
Anonymous
" The Family Wales "
Some of the most honest and telling stories about the " Wales Family " were told by Stephen P. Barry, former valet to
H.R.H. The Prince of Wales . Mr Barry now himself deceased, here are things spoken of by him.
In the early days whilst Diana was still teaching at the nursery school and I was sneaking her out of the back door of
her apartment helping her to dodge the press for meetings with Prince Charles she spoke of wanting four children. A
very important factor that the wife of the heir to the throne wants to ensure the continuance of the Royal line. Diana
has done so with Princes William and Harry. The princess however did not enjoy pregnancy telling me that "If men had
the babies, there wouldn't be any! " The end result of the morning sickness and not being able to wear fashionable
outfits she loves and adores her role as Mother which is often of conflict in a lifestyle that necessitates nannies whilst
she as a public figure performs her numerous Royal engagements.
Prince Charles loathed his schooling particularly at "Gordonstoun" in Scotland and is determined his sons will not
follow him there. He was the first heir to the throne to ever go to school, the Queen being educated by a governess in
the palace. Princess Diana though has the greatest say about what happens to them as she has already broken
through generations of Royal protocol. The Queen by example would never arrive at the nursery unannounced,
ensuring her children were clean and it neat and tidy for her arrival. Princess Diana pops in and out of the nurseries at
"Kensington Palace" and "Highgrove" all the time. Her bedroom within listening distance of both and the first wail from
either of her sons and she is out of bed to comfort them, Prince Charles has tried to get her to delegate more of this
responsibility to her staff but she will have none of it saying " A mother's arms are more comforting than anyone else's.
"
Prince Charles himself even bathing his sons, he having rarely seen his father who was more inclined to write to his
children than visit the nursery. Charles had adored his nanny Mabel Anderson, a traditionalist, old fashioned and with
common sense and would have liked her to be nanny for his sons but Diana was determined to have a modern,
unstarched nanny trained in up-to -date methods and so employed for the job was Nanny Barnes. This arrangement
not without problems as Diana wants and insists upon total involvement in every aspect of her children's upbringing
and nannies being traditionally accustomed to total authority in the nursery. ( Nanny Barnes eventually losing her
position, Diana feeling eldest son William having grown too fond of her. )
In the summer of 1982 the rumours that Princess Diana was unhappy were quite true, everyone at the palace worried
that the fairy-tale romance was going to collapse. Divorce unthinkable, there was no question that Prince Charles
would do his duty but nervousness at what the Princess herself might do. The feeling among the public was that she
had made a terrible mistake and could not stand the pressure of being Royal. In truth it was the Prince who felt that he
had perhaps married someone who was not equipped to deal with the job.
The Princess was not well disposed to people who had been part of his previous bachelorhood lifestyle and though I
included resented her attitude, it was a natural one...she wanted the Prince to be all hers with the past finished and
done. Many of our duties for him in the past were no longer valid, I for example had been paid to see that he was
properly dressed, his meals arranged, things that now his new young bride wanted to take control of, my job as I'd
known it had ended so I decided to resign. The Prince was miserable seeing things change and the Princess was
difficult, often throwing tantrums determined to have her own way. ( Diana felt Barry should leave after her marriage to
Charles because of his complicity in shielding Charles's relationship with Camilla and his powerful influence over him,
the twelve year stint as valet, keeper of secrets and general adviser to the Prince.)
Initially the Princess finding losing her personal freedom a trial, not being able to go off to the hairdresser when she
liked but rather an appointment made for he to come to her and not being able to go out alone. I recall taking her to
her car, a red mini - metro and as she climbed into the driving seat, the door on the other side opening and one of the
prince's policemen Paul Officer joining her and Diana saying to him .." It's alright, I can manage " and being told by him
.." Sorry, we're part of your life now! " It was not long after this that Paul resigned as the Princess had found him too
protective and fatherly towards her! With the public Diana is superb, a natural, she always looks wonderful and her
genuine warmth and liking for people is evident leading Prince Charles to comment .." I might as well stay in the car,
they've all come to see her." ......
Prince Charles had been anxious about her in the early days and he had been right to be, they were desperately
lonely times for her and particularly he going off on his last solo tour of Australia newly engaged, a nineteen year old
in a totally different environment to the one she'd been accustomed to living with her flat-mates in her apartment. In
the palace her company being her portable Sony Walkman! Diana even in "Buckingham Palace" where she lived prior
to the marriage rarely saw the Queen uninvited to join her and Prince Philip for tea or to meals, being served hers
reheated on warming plates having been brought to her from the kitchens through the maze of corridors.
Since these revelations by Mr. Barry it is common knowledge that Diana was aware before marrying him that Charles
loved his mistress, now his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall more than her and had expected to retain Camilla as his
mistress and a compliant Diana as his wife! However, for Diana born into a different generation, a more modern
woman than he had bargained for, this was in her eyes unacceptable ... Charles, Camilla, Prince Philip and even the
Queen herself had got it so wrong, infidelity would not be tolerated silently by " Diana, Princess of Wales! "
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
(Date Posted:17/10/2006 02:50:50)
(Obviously written by someone who thinks for themselves and in the know!)
I work as (among other things) a free-lance journalist. It took me about a week or so after the tragic car crash which
took the lives of Princess Diana, companion Dodi Fayed and driver Henri - Paul to piece together that we, the public,
and apparently the press, were being completely manipulated and lied to about the so-called accident. I'm really only
scratching the surface of this truly shocking story, as I don't have extensive financial resources to devote to
investigating this story in any serious depth, which it absolutely demands. There are a tremendous number of very
troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by
authorities or by the major news media.
The London Times on Sept. 21 1997 ran a crucial story which has turned things around substantially; it reports that a
highly credible witness, a British attorney, clearly saw another vehicle leaving the crash scene at very high speed in an
obvious getaway. This dovetails with mounting material evidence from the crash site proving another vehicle (not
paparazzi!) impacted the Mercedes in the tunnel and clearly instigated the disaster -- at least in part. Officials also
said pointedly that they want to know why "bodyguard" Trevor Rees-Jones fastened his seatbelt not long before the
crash. The implication is that he knew something was about to happen -- something potentially life-threatening.
Professional bodyguards almost never wear seat belts as they must be ready for any eventuality at any time. The
man's background is British military intelligence. The mass media really need to realize they have been played by
some real masters of the art regarding what was definitely an intentional, meticulously planned and executed murder.
The press urgently needs to start asking the great number of questions regarding this mysterious fatal car accident. It
is a certainty beyond any doubt that the crash that ostensibly killed Princess Diana was an intentional murder and the
reporting of the events preceding, during and after the tragedy has been thoroughly manipulated by intelligence
agencies.
Incredibly, after the major news noted in the first paragraph above, of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony
which had caused investigators to completely reevaluate the case, all mention of the latest turn of events seems to
have disappeared from the news. Why haven't Her Majesty's Secret Service, British Intelligence, Interpol, Scotland
Yard, etc. shown apparently the slightest interest in investigating what is less and less likely to have been an
"accident"? Even the merest indication that it might not have been an accident should have triggered massive
investigation by those agencies. The fact that there was none is just unbelievable, especially in light of the latest news
I mentioned. It might not be stretching things too far to speculate that itself strongly suggests conspiracy and cover-up
at rather high levels. There are far too many holes in the official story. The cover-up is relying on the unprecedented
and quite unbelievable lack of media scrutiny of the events. It's just totally outrageous that this wretched murder could
be contorted, spin-doctored and finessed into an being accepted as an "accident" by the whole world. That is almost
more disturbing than the assassination itself!
It's been pointed out to me that due to the extreme strictures of Britain's Official (National) Secrets Act, certain topics
can be designated as matters of national security of which any published (or public?) discussion is completely
forbidden ; if this order is violated, the "offenders" can be immediately incarcerated, their publication facilities etc.
closed/dismantled; further, if any mention whatsoever of those actions (i.e. against the publisher of the forbidden
information) is made by any other publisher, the publishers of that subsequent information are likewise subject to the
exact same penalty; thereby enforcing press censorship of the very fact of press censorship! I imagine that this
extraordinarily restrictive situation would impinge severely upon the ability of any news organisation to deal with certain
matters at all. According to other terms of this National Secrets Act, any publisher/news organisation who receives
information, publication of which would violate the previously noted terms, is obliged to inform British authorities of that
fact -- as well as the source of the information. It's been further pointed out to me that MI5 and MI6 are literally sworn
to protect and uphold the monarchy and the Royal family above all else and at all costs; thereby the "termination" of
Diana was seen by those designated operatives enjoined to carry it out as a necessity to ensure the continued rule of
monarchy -- an absolute necessity.
I'm not suggesting that the situation in the U.S. is any better; perhaps superficially there is more of an illusion of
freedom in that regard. However in terms of what is actually "on the books" I can't think of any comparable law
effective in the U.S. ... yet. Of course the NSA, CIA, etc. pretty much write their own program regarding such matters in
the U.S., and if the actual information which the public receives through the media is completely manipulated anyway,
the end result is pretty much the same. The method in the U.S. seems also to involve more sinister threats and
certainly malicious and/or deadly actions to enforce secrecy on such (top-secret) matters. At least one journalist (not
me) here has been warned by certain CIA operative to back off the Princess Diana story, or he may "get his fingers
burned." The UK law noted ensures more direct and complete control with much less chance of leakage regarding
such state secrets however. Very unfortunate either way. No matter what, we can honor Diana's memory by standing
strong against the forces that in all likelihood viciously took Diana's life. Diana Spencer consciously set out to use her
position of great influence to counteract many of the negative and bitter results of such international policies
implemented globally by just such forces, and it seems because of that, in addition to several other "reasons", she was
assassinated.
An article in Sunday's London Times of September 21st 1997 reports that there is a highly credible eyewitness to the
events immediately after the crash in Paris' Pont de L'Alma tunnel which took the lives of Dodi Fayed, driver Henri -
Paul and ostensibly Princess Diana at 12:20 AM on August 31st 1997. The witness, British attorney Gary Hunter,
distinctly observed another vehicle fleeing the scene at very high speed. This brings the investigation of the tragic
events full circle: back to a number of similar initial eyewitness accounts which were totally ignored in a series of rush-
to-judgment scenarios. Quite noteworthy also was the fact that Mr. Hunter's testimony had been given to the Fayed's
legal team not long after the crash, and was duly passed on to French authorities by them; information which
authorities apparently did not pursue and which was not publicized.
This news as well as corroborating evidence Paris police now have from pieces of wreckage found at the scene which
are not from Diana's Mercedes, have abruptly forced the entire incident and all relevant preceding and following
events to be immediately and completely reevaluated and reexamined as non-accidental-- in fact, as a probable
homicide or assassination. There are a large number of very troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about
this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by various authorities or by the major news media. Why haven't
Her Majesty's Secret Service, British intelligence and other appropriate agencies shown any interest in investigating
what is less and less likely to have been an "accident"? Even the merest indication that it might not have been an
accident should have triggered massive scrutiny by those agencies. A great many such indications will now be brought
forth. Impartial skepticism as well as sincere yet non-gullible open mindedness are prerequisites for getting as close as
possible to the truth, to the heart of any matter.
In addition, a resistance towards jumping to conclusions regarding potential "conspiracies" behind every significant or
unusual event should be balanced by an unwillingness to immediately and unquestioningly accept the officially
authorized versions of such events, especially those from which certain of the "powers that be" stand to gain
significantly, and in particular any such events which involve the unexpected and/or somewhat puzzling death of a
major world figure. One of the most blatantly suspicious of the great number of very troubling inconsistencies in the
"official" version of what supposedly happened that night in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel concern the physical and mental
condition of Trevor Rees-Jones, claimed to be a personal bodyguard of Dodi Fayed's and the only one in the car now
still alive.
Trevor Rees-Jones, although very badly injured, was not killed. He could offer invaluable insight into what actually
occurred during that brief ride which ended with such horror and violence. If indeed there were malicious or unusual
events precipitating the crash which Trevor Rees-Jones was uninvolved in or which he had come to regret any such
involvement in, or even malicious actions after the crash, perhaps en route to or at the hospital, then Trevor Rees-
Jones' testimony could be extremely important. Although early reports said that his face, tongue and lips were severely
lacerated and his condition extremely grave, a news story on September. 8th 1997 said that Trevor Rees-Jones was
recovering reasonably well, and had told his mother how terribly upset he was about the accident, how guilty he felt,
but that there was nothing he could have done to prevent what happened. Obviously the man was aware that a very
serious tragedy had occurred, and the definite sense conveyed by the story is that he was aware Diana (and Dodi)
were dead. It also says that he has suffered no brain damage of any kind. Amazingly enough, 4 days after the news
item I just noted, another news item said that the poor fellow's hold on consciousness was so slight and that he was so
physically, mentally and emotionally distressed that he had not yet been told about the death(s)!, and, one would
think, by extrapolation, had not yet been told about the crash!? Incontestably, there is funny business afoot here.
A third news item really clinches the setup, and shows without doubt that not only is the news being manipulated, but
also that this man's mind is being intentionally damaged and his memory tampered with. The article says that Trevor
Rees-Jones may not even be able to remember the crash, because his mind is so messed up, but mainly from
"anesthetics" and other drugs administered at the hospital! The article also quoted his mother, who 4 days ago says
she was told by her son how badly he felt about what happened, as now saying that ..."he's unconscious most of the
time...he's not fit enough to be told ..." It sums up by stating that Trevor Rees-Jones may never be able to remember
the events preceding the tragedy, and judging by the effects of the current "treatment" being given Trevor Rees-
Jones, he will never be deemed fit enough and thus will never be told! (Perhaps it might jog his memory too much).
Predictably, a September 18th 1997 news bulletin says that the judge investigating the deadly crash found Trevor
Rees-Jones had no recollection whatsoever of the events preceding and during the crash! This was clearly a result of
the mind-altering drugs administered at Salpetriere Hospital, which effectively erased his previously intact memory of
the events! This is according to the hospital's own sources. It is obvious from reading these four news stories in
chronological order that they are thoroughly contradictory.
Someone isn't even covering their tracks at all on this. Maybe they just figure that no one will notice, and if we do, so
what? In another report on recent developments in the investigation dated September 21st 1997, London's Sunday
Mirror said investigators want to know what caused bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones to fasten his seat belt shortly
before the crash, as if he knew what was coming! Bodyguards, who need to be always ready for action, do not usually
wear their seat belts while on duty. The background and status of Trevor Rees-Jones is notably obscure; he has an
extensive career in military intelligence (in the Gulf War and North Ireland) and subsequent secretive activities as a
(supposedly) private citizen. Trevor Rees-Jones was initially reported to be Diana's bodyguard, yet later reports
placed him as an employee of the Fayed organization, perhaps a sleeper agent previously planted in that position to
be called upon when needed. It would seem Trevor Rees-Jones was aware that something was about to happen to the
vehicle -- something life-threatening. As a professional bodyguard Trevor Rees -Jones' responsibility was to ensure
the safety of Princess Diana and her companion at all costs. For example, if driver Henri - Paul was so drunk and out
of control throughout most of the ride as has been claimed, why didn't Trevor Rees-Jones do his job and reach over
and turn off the ignition ? Once again, little in the prevailing "official" version if events fits.
It is literally impossible for driver Henri - Paul to have been anywhere near as drunk as is being claimed when he took
the wheel, as well as under the influence Prozac and other medication too. The prescriptions Henri - Paul had and a
statement from the doctor who wrote them should be made public immediately. This man's name and reputation have
been completely demolished and he's no longer around to defend himself. After the original attempt to implicate the
"paparazzi" directly in causing the crash failed to stick, it seems it fell to the late Henri - Paul to become the scapegoat.
News published worldwide that Henri -Paul was a recovering and/or latent and/or occasional alcoholic was just that to
all who knew him -- news? Not one of the friends, associates and family questioned by investigators considered him to
be an alcoholic or suffering from clinical depression. Video footage taken shortly before the tragedy at the Hotel Ritz
shows him in fact to be in full command of himself, and no one in the entourage noticed that he was inebriated before
he took the wheel.
The mother of Princess Diana's driver said in an interview that her son did not suffer from alcoholism or depression
despite tests showing he had drugs used to treat those illnesses and high blood-alcohol levels in his system. "My son
wasn't an alcoholic," the daily "Le Figaro" quoted Gisele Paul as saying of her son Henri. "Can one imagine that the
Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed would have agreed to get in a car driven by someone who is drunk?" " Henri - Paul
was not depressive and behaved perfectly! "the paper quoted his mother as saying. A Paris friend of Henri -Paul's,
Claude Garrec, has described him as a "Bon Vivant" but "in no way depressed, just overworked." Paris police have
been attempting to establish how Henri - Paul came to have a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit. The man's
background and his demeanor both the night of the tragedy and in general was not that of an alcoholic.
Just because alcohol is found in somebody's blood post mortem, does not indicate how it got there. Very likely the
police have released this information because there are too many troubling inconsistencies. By making this public they
are letting the evidence either be challenged or corroborated, and the consensus among Henri - Paul's friends, family
and associates is that he was definitely not a heavy drinker. The police themselves have offered no scenario
explaining how Henri - Paul's blood alcohol level could have been that high, and they haven't made public any
information on who prescribed the antidepressants he was on, if indeed anyone did. If there is such irrefutable
evidence supporting the drunk driver theory, one would think that the royals or the Spencer family would have made a
major public statement against drunk driving, or decided to use a portion of the money accumulating in the Diana
Memorial fund to campaign against drunk driving.
For instance In the US, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has already begun using a new slogan for their campaign:
"Drunk Drivers Have Taken Too Many Little Princesses Already". Over the weekend, Laurence Pujol, a former
girlfriend of Henri - Paul, told the French daily newspaper "Le Figaro" that during the five years they lived together
Henri - Paul was only a moderate drinker and was not clinically depressed. In fact she was quoted as saying "I'll
remember someone who lived life to the full. His self-control was very impressive -- he loved to be in charge of the
situation and had great plans. His professional conscientiousness was irreproachable." Pujol said she had never
known him to take any medicines, nor seen him drink alone. He had also recently been to see his personal doctor,
Diane Beaulieu D'Ivernois, and received a routine medical for his pilot's license. The doctor wouldn't discuss her
patient's medical background, but journalists obtained transcripts of his medical record going back nearly 20 years. He
had undergone regular tests on his urine, reflexes, coordination and emotional state and no problems had been
indicated. Laboratory reports said that liver samples showed conclusively that Henri -Paul was not a habitual heavy
drinker.
Alexander Wingfield, a bodyguard employed by the Fayed organization who was protecting the Princess and her
companion, Dodi Fayed, told the American ABC television network that he was with Henri - Paul for two hours before
the accident and nothing indicated that he was drunk. "He looked and behaved perfectly sober to me. Over a period of
about two hours, I was within a few feet of him on several occasions and never smelled drink on his breath". "Henri -
Paul drove well... He was a professional driver as far as I could see," Wingfield recalled about his ride into Paris from
Le Bourget airport hours before the crash in one of the backup vehicles, a Land Rover driven by Henri - Paul.
Joel Fleury, the owner of Le Grand Colbert, a local restaurant where he often dined with friends, told reporters, "He
was a straightforward guy. He appreciated good French cuisine and enjoyed a drink but I have never seen him drunk.
When he came with his girlfriend she would have a glass of champagne. He would just sip Perrier water." Henri - Paul
dropped his passengers off at approximately 7 PM and returned to the hotel Ritz at 10.08 PM after receiving a call
around 10 PM on his mobile telephone. By the time he returned a large pack of paparazzi was outside the front of the
hotel waiting for Diana and Dodi to leave. Between 10.30 PM and midnight Henri - Paul wandered out of the front
entrance and started chatting to one of the paparazzi with whom he was acquainted. He wanted advice on which flash
to buy for a new camera he had recently purchased. Henri - Paul seemed "very relaxed", according to the
photographer, who had met him many times before. Over the next hour or so Henri - Paul came out repeatedly to talk
to the photographers. As noted, video shot during this period by a Ritz security camera shows a man who appears
fully sober.
Anonymous
