Interviews with John Morgan

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

EXCLUSIVE: The Talking Clock interviews investigative author John Morgan, author of the 'Diana
Inquest' series of books into the death of our Princess


With phenomenal renewed interest in the killing of Diana, Princess of Wales being evident at this blog, a
documentary movie about the inquest Unlawful Killing hitting Cannes and the headlines, and with people coming
here constantly - day after day - having searched for the term "Princess Diana Wikileaks" on Google, we thought
this a good time to give those unfamiliar with some of the detail a quick opportunity to catch up.

We invited Australian investigative writer John Morgan, who has published a hugely respected, four volume series of
research into the Diana case - receiving grand praise from none less than Mike Mansfield QC for his efforts - to
have a chat with us exclusively here at The Talking Clock.

We're delighted to say that he agreed and so, here for you - especially those of you who don't know the background
- is our interview with John Morgan.


1.Firstly John, thank you so very much for agreeing to answer some questions for us. Let's start with a little about
yourself - what caused you to start writing your series of books examining the death of Diana?

I have always considered that the circumstances of the crash didn’t quite add up, but it wasn’t until Paul Burrell, in
2003, published the note from Diana that predicted she could die in a car crash, that I really took an interest in the
case.

I was forced to retire due to ill health – a terminal neurological illness called multiple system atrophy – sometime
after that, and I decided to start researching the Paris crash. By the time the Paget Report was published late in
2006 I already knew a fair bit about the subject. I read through that report and very soon started to realise how
flawed it was.

I then decided to write about it and in October 2007 published my initial book, Cover-Up of a Royal Murder:
Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report, which was used by Michael Mansfield at the London inquest.

2. And what were or are your views on Diana herself? Were you a 'fan', for want of a better word?

I have never particularly been a fan of any royals, including Diana. I really didn’t know that much about her until I
started doing the research about six or so years ago.

I now see her as a very special person, who at a young age naÏvely married for love into the royal family. She was
special because she didn’t waste her privileged position – instead Diana led the way on many critical issues
including attitudes to AIDS, support for the homeless and the campaign to rid the world of landmines.

3. Now, no less an authority than Mike Mansfield QC has praised the results of your work in researching the details
and publishing your findings of the case - how did that feel?

I am extremely pleased and grateful that Michael Mansfield has praised my books and affirmed the significance of
my investigations.

4. Onto the case, let's start at the end. What is the one fact that is little known that, above all, you would want those
who believe it was nothing more than a 'tragic accident' to consider..?

I
think that people either don’t know about, or underestimate, the significance of the mistreatment of Diana inside
the ambulance. Most appear to believe that the ambulance people were negligent in delaying her arrival at the
hospital, but there is a lot more to their actions – this is addressed in question 15 below.

5. This blog author - along with many others who have looked at the case closely - believes that Diana's landmines
campaign, more than anything else, lies behind the events of August 31st 1997. At the inquest, Mike Mansfield QC
wasn't allowed to probe too deeply into that subject area, repeatedly being warned off asking too many questions
about Bosnia and Angola. Did you, like me, get the impression Mike Mansfield had a few more clues about what to
ask on that subject matter than we've been allowed to know?

Michael Mansfield appeared to be very restricted in his questioning on landmines and I’m sure he would have liked
to delve into that subject much deeper than he was allowed to.

6. The British press coverage of the inquest seemed to be more taken up with lurid details about Diana's love life -
real or imagined - than any actual detail from the inquest witness testimony. Was that simply a mark of the press
being in the gutter, or was something more sinister at play?

It’s hard to know for sure what drives the British press – on this issue they seem to be quite keen to follow the
Establishment line. And since the British Establishment is a prime suspect in the assassination, that media approach
has prevented the truth from being made public. The media seem to act as one – for example, uniformly they
misreported the jury verdict as unlawful killing by the paparazzi, when the jury said unlawful killing by following
vehicles, and it can be proven beyond doubt that those following vehicles were not paparazzi.

The Daily Express is the only British media I know of that has been prepared to break away from the Establishment
line in their reporting of developments in this case.

7. So, let's rewind to August 30th, 1997. When Diana and Dodi first arrived at the airport at Le Bourget for Paris,
they experienced the first fear inducing journey in the chain of events that were to take place. What has your
research thrown up about that journey which people should know?


There are two aspects to this trip.

Firstly, the witness evidence reveals that there were lots of photo flashes, but no photos have ever appeared. If
these photos had been taken by paparazzi then they would have been published. There are no photos.

Secondly, there were also powerful motorbikes that threatened the Mercedes on that trip – these could not have
been paparazzi because they were driving scooters and small cars.

The evidence on the day points to the existence of people on bikes taking photos, pretending to be paparazzi. This
applies to this journey as well as the final journey – there were also photo flashes witnessed during that journey, but
again no photos have materialised.

This could well have been part of the orchestrated conspiracy, in other words, the idea to pin the crash on the
paparazzi was being set up right through the day. The occupants of the Mercedes had no way of knowing that the
people taking these photos were not paparazzi.



8. So, we get to the evening of 30th August - Diana and Dodi abort plans to go to a restaurant and seek refuge at
the Ritz Hotel. As Diana enters the hotel, the CCTV camera clearly shows her looking quite upset and distressed.
What do we know about what caused Diana to become upset?

Strange as it may sound, the evidence actually shows that Diana and Dodi never planned to go to the other
restaurant – the Chez Benoit. Witness evidence reveals that their plan all along was to go to the Ritz Hotel for
dinner, but the Chez Benoit was told to people probably to create a diversion or decoy for paparazzi or anyone else
who they didn’t want to know their intended route.

I would think that Diana was distressed because of the pressure that was being built up by the fake paparazzi on
their large motorbikes. Again on this trip – from the apartment to the hotel – there was witness evidence of photo
flashes and again there have never been any photos of this trip ever published.

9. Now, it is during the evening that Henri Paul's movements become the centre of much mystery. We know from
witness testimony at the inquest that people claiming to be from the British press were going into Parisian bars
offering people money to say that Henri Paul had been in there drinking during the evening, even though this was
not that case. Do we know exactly where Henri Paul had gone and why?

Henri Paul left the Ritz around 7 p.m. and returned about 10 p.m.

There is certainly an air of mystery about where he was and what he was doing during those three hours.

The following is an excerpt from Part 1Diana Inquest: The Untold Story – it sheds some light on it:

“We know that Henri:
•had told Claude Garrec [his close friend] that he would be working late that night
•phoned Didier Gamblin [working at Dodi’s apartment] about work at around 7.30 p.m.
•didn’t spend the time at home
•didn’t spend the time with friends or family
•entered Josiane Le Tellier’s bar for a short time at around 9.45 p.m.
•drove off in his car from Josiane’s just after 9.45 p.m.


“There is something else that we know that is very significant: We know that Henri either spent the disappearance
time on his own or with a person or persons.

“Whoever Henri did spend the time with, does not want us to know who they are and what Henri was doing –
otherwise they would have come forward. So he, she or they have something to hide.

“If Henri spent the time on his own somewhere, then why hasn’t someone from the Paris public come forward with a
sighting?

“The evidence indicates that if he had been at a loose end he would have gone to Garrec’s place, where he
regularly went on Saturday nights.

“The evidence also suggests that Henri considered himself to be working, in one form or another: he phoned
Gamblin at 7.30; he didn’t change his clothing; he told Josiane that he was “on call” and he didn’t spend any time
with friends.”

Other parts of that book indicate that Henri spent at least some of that time getting instructions from his intelligence
agency handlers.

10. Back to the Ritz and a car was provided to Dodi and the Ritz. That car and the limousine firm, Etoile... what can
you tell us about them or about the car?

What happened is there was a late plan to turn the two cars waiting out the front of the hotel into decoy cars and
instead use a third car from the back driven by Henri Paul.

The evidence shows that the plan came from Henri Paul and Claude Roulet, both of whom appear to have been
following instructions from an intelligence agency on the night.

The evidence about this is extremely complex – but nevertheless very strong – and is all in Part 1 of the Diana
Inquest books.

11. Now, Diana and Dodi left from the rear of the Ritz to make that fateful last journey. This blog author retraced that
exact journey in Paris. For those who haven't been there, it really isn't the route anyone would take to go from the
Ritz to Dodi's apartment. Do you believe that they actually were going to Dodi's apartment?

Yes, there is no evidence that they were going anywhere else.

They didn’t go down the Champs Elysées because the traffic is too heavy on a Saturday night.

Instead they turned right onto the riverside expressway with the intention of exiting at the first exit after the
Alexander III tunnel.

The witness evidence reveals that one of the large motorbikes – mentioned earlier – placed itself on the right of the
Mercedes while at least another two bikes also surrounded it. The bike on the right prevented the Mercedes from
exiting where it wanted to and it was forced into going through the Alma Tunnel.

12. So, pursuing vehicles. White Fiat Unos, James Andanson, mysterious cars which witnesses said disappeared up
side roads in the direction of the British Embassy... for anyone who thinks we're making this up, where should they
start their research?

I would seriously suggest reading Part 1 of my books!

You have to look at what the witnesses said and then compare one with the other. And not just what they said at the
inquest, but what they said in their original statements at the time – most of those were withheld from the inquest
jury.

Really as to what happened on the journey and in the tunnel and leaving the tunnel, all we have is what the
witnesses said – there is no CCTV footage ... and that’s another story!

13. Now, within no time, the media raced to proclaim that Henri Paul had been driving at 121mph at the time of the
crash. Who put that deliberately false story out, do we know?

On the afternoon of 1 September 1997 the Paris Public Prosecutor announced to the press that Henri Paul was
driving three times over the French limit – 1.75 g/L.

I know the 121 mph was published in the British press, possibly even late on August 31 – I’m not sure where that
one came from.

14. At the inquest, respected scientists trashed the management and processing of autopsy samples supposedly
taken from Henri Paul. These are the samples that apparently indicated that he was high on alcohol, prescription
drugs, and carbon monoxide poisoning. How confident are you that these were Henri Paul's samples?

The respected scientists were fully justified.

There is no way that the samples tested belonged to Henri Paul. The evidence is overwhelming that there were two
bodies in the autopsy room. To start with, there are two sets of documents!

A lot of critical evidence on this comes from documents the jury never saw. I was provided with these important
documents that are from within the British Paget investigation.

This is very complicated and is covered in Part 3 of my books – Diana Inquest: The French Cover-Up. This issue
was also addressed by me at a press conference held last year. There is footage from that on YouTube: http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=JfqTJ9ZXLAg It is in two parts.

15. Now, much has been made about the time it took the French to get Diana to hospital. Although it is not pleasant
to consider, do you believe that the journey to the hospital was so incredibly slow due to the medical teams in Paris
taking care of our Princess... or did something sinister take place in that time, in your view?

Diana survived the crash.

The two people on the driver’s side – Henri Paul and Dodi – died instantly, but the two on the passenger’s side,
Trevor Rees-Jones and Diana, survived.

It took Diana’s ambulance 1 hour 43 minutes to get to the hospital, then 6 minutes later Diana stopped breathing –
at 2.12 a.m. She never recovered from that.

There are several factors that indicate Diana was mistreated in the ambulance:
a.the length of time it took – there were unnecessary delays – 43 minutes to get Diana into the ambulance, 35
minutes stationery inside the ambulance in the Alma Tunnel, 25 minutes to travel 5.7 km: all up, 1 hour 43 minutes
to get Diana to a hospital.
b.there is documentary evidence that a thoracic trauma was found straight after Diana was taken in to the
ambulance, yet in the later transcripts of conversations from the ambulance to the base the doctor said “nothing for
the thorax” twice.
c.The ambulance stopped for 5 minutes just 500 metres from the hospital. The doctor said this was to increase
Diana’s fluids, yet that was something that could have been done in a moving ambulance. Following journalists saw
a doctor get out of the front and go into the back – bringing the number of people in the back to four – and also
witnessed what they called a “rocking” ambulance.

There are other factors which also point to sinister mistreatment – this is covered in Part 2 of the books: Diana
Inquest: How & Why Did Diana Die?

16. We then have the case of the Mishcon note. It amazes me how many people don't know what the Mishcon note
was. What can you tell us about it? And what can you say about Diana leaving notes outlining her fears?

The Mishcon note was written up in October 1995 by Diana’s lawyer, Victor Mishcon, following a meeting with Diana,
during which she expressed fears that efforts could be made to dispose of her in a car crash.

After the 1997 crash Mishcon took the note to the MPS Commissioner, Paul Condon, who locked it away in his safe.
The police secretly kept the note until 2003, only passing it onto the coroner after Paul Burrell made public a
different note to himself, with similar content.


17. You may remember that Diana gave an interview to the BBC programme Panorama. In retrospect, do you think
that had a ring of 'insurance policy' to it, in much the same way as the Mishcon note?

There is no question that the witness and documentary evidence shows Diana feared for her life – she said that she
particularly feared Prince Philip, Robert Fellowes and Nicholas Soames.

I believe that when Diana spoke out – on Panorama and to Mishcon – it was really saying, “Well, if something
happens to me, you’ll know it wasn’t an accident” or “you’ll know where to look”.

I think that Diana felt her insurance policy was her high profile and the fact she was loved by so many people
around the world. In the end that appeared to mean nothing to the people who got rid of her.

18. After months of deliberation, the inquest jury found that Diana had been the victim of unlawful killing. The British
press were loathe to report that detail and no criminal investigation has been launched as a result of that finding.
What's going on there, do you think?

Immediately after the verdict, the mainstream worldwide press uniformly converted “unlawful killing by following
vehicles” into “unlawful killing by the paparazzi”. It is difficult for an outsider to understand how this could happen,
but there are probably a few journalists, editors or media owners who could shed light on it.

In the judge’s 2½ days of summing up to the jury he often replaced the term “following vehicles” with “paparazzi” and
that possibly had some influence on the assembled media.

The fact that the police – in both France and the UK – have not made any attempt since the inquest to identify the
drivers or riders of the following vehicles could be further evidence that the authorities in both nations were complicit
in what occurred in the Alma Tunnel.

19. Some might say we will never know exactly what happened to Diana, so we should let it go to protect the feelings
of William and Harry. Others say we should let her rest in peace. What do you say?

Princess Diana was very strong on seeking justice. It is hard to believe that it would have been her wish to let the
perpetrators of her assassination walk free, while the rest of the world “moved on”.

Since she is not around to seek justice in this it is up to those of us who remain to seek that justice on the part of
her and Dodi Fayed.

We are slowly finding out what occurred and I believe that in the end the truth will prevail over the evil that has been
perpetrated and continues to be perpetrated in the form of the ongoing cover-up.