Date Posted: 08-01-12
The Death of Princess Diana
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 31. 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 Al Fayed's and the only one in the car now still alive.
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 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 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 Sept. 8 said that 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
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 Ress-Jones may never be able to remember the
events preceding the tragedy, and judging by the effects of the current "treatment" being given Mr. 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 18 news bulletin says that the judge investigating the deadly crash found Mr. 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 21, 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 Mr. 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. 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
Rees-Jones was aware that something was about to happen to the vehicle -- something life-threatening. As a
professional bodyguard Mr. 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 Rees-Jones do his job and reach over and turn off the ignition or if necessary, cold-cock Paul?
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 Mr. 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 Mr. Paul to become the scapegoat.
News published worldwide that Mr. 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 published today 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?'' Paul ''was not depressive and behaved perfectly,'' the paper quoted his mother as saying.
A Paris friend of 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Paul, told the French daily newspaper Le Figaro that
during the five years they lived together 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. She 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 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 Mr. Paul for two hours before the
accident and nothing indicated that Paul 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
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 Mr. Paul.
Joel Fleury, the owner of Le Grand Colbert, a local restaurant where Mr. Paul 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."
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 Paul wandered out of the front
entrance and started chatting to one of the paparazzi with whom he was acquainted. Paul wanted advice on which
flash to buy for a new camera he had recently purchased. Paul seemed "very relaxed", according to the
photographer, who had met Paul many times before. Over the next hour or so 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.
Part of the police case against the paparazzi is that once they arrived at the scene of the accident, they (the
paparazzi) failed to assist an injured person. Yet nearly all the photographers are claiming they were several hundred
yards behind the Mercedes and that they arrived after the first doctor was already on the scene, an off-duty doctor
who had been driving by named Frederic Mailliez.
An email communique sent to an Internet discussion group by someone claiming to be of the photographers who was
following the Mercedes the night of August 31 says that he has not only fled the crash site but also the country,
apparently because after he took several pictures of the wreckage and the victims, a very alive Diana spoke some
extremely chilling words to him. Using an acknowledged alias and routing his letter through an intermediary for his
protection, "Mr. Merceilles" declares (mistakes uncorrected), "I am one of photographer who followed Diana and her
companion Dodi Fayed until their death in a car-crash. (Paris tunnel -- 31 august 1997) I was lucky at that time, while
the accident took place, I am 60 metres from the spot. When I heard a very loud sound came from the tunnel, I jumped
from one of my friend's bike (who is now detained) to inspect the scene. I could see a hand of someone waving at us
to seek some help. With a terrible shock, I found that was the hand of princess.
"I could not see her face clearly, as a warm blood streaming all over her face. She still alive and crying painfully. With
"discourage feeling", I forced myself to take some picture of her -- (the pictures and negative are with me now and I
am not intend to sell it for profit). From the distance, I could see people already gathering to see what was happening
there. I do not understand the world, for accusing us (photographers) for Diana and Dodi death. As a matter of fact, It
looks like all people of the world pointing at us as we are the greatest criminal of a crime that we did not responsible. I
still remember the words came from Diana's throat before she died. "Help... someone outside plan to kill us".
A spokesperson for the Fayeds and the Ritz said that although Dodi had been "examined" by a pathologist in Britain
before he was buried, this had not been a full postmortem examination, and that no blood samples were taken.
Lawyers for the photographers have questioned such procedures. "The behavior of passengers in the investigation of
a car accident is very important," said one. Another said he would very much like to know how much, if anything, Dodi
had drunk that evening and whether he would have been lucid.
Of course absolutely no postmortem of any kind, which could precisely indicate the direct cause of death, was done
on the body of Princess Diana. Paris police have said that after the accident occurred the ambulance took nearly half
an hour to get to the scene. Also the police have confirmed that they were escorting the ambulance back to the
hospital but then became separated. The ambulance arrived at the hospital much later and the drivers claimed to
have lost their way! This was reported on many European radio channels. Why aren't the identities and records of
these so-called ambulance drivers being released?
Witness accounts recorded by TV crews directly after the tragedy stated that there was an initial impact or explosion,
then the sound of metal scraping followed by the sound of a very loud crash when the vehicle hit the tunnel structure.
These descriptions were edited out of subsequent broadcasts and have not been heard since. What was the initial
sound caused by? If a massive crash could somehow be instigated, the time, location, and condition of the
armor-plated limousine would assuredly create some delays in any occupants not killed receiving medical attention,
which itself could be of a terminal sort administered by specially assigned agents who, while returning to the hospital
in the ambulance, inconceivably lose their way!
Has the scenario being presented -- of all those photographers riding motorcycles and trying to take pictures of the
inside of a car with tinted windows travelling at 120 MPH, at night, in a dim narrow tunnel -- been seriously called into
question, as it seems it should ? Does anyone really believe that one or more of these paparazzi on motorcycles
actually attempted to cut off a large automobile at such speeds? (Nonetheless it's now certain that at least one other
vehicle did intentionally impact the Mercedes in the tunnel.) Does it seem the least bit likely that Diana, Dodi and their
bodyguard would drive off in a vehicle with a man supposedly so completely inebriated? Why has it been claimed that
Mr. Paul sped rapidly away from The Ritz to evade the paparazzi when there was no antagonism or ill will
demonstrated before the Mercedes left The Ritz and video footage shows the car leaving at a reasonable speed?
Although earlier reports had the Mercedes going 120 miles per hour, more recent bulletins from Paris say experts
estimated the car's speed at about 75 miles per hour. Why would anyone drive at such a dangerous speed just to get
away from photographers? Photographs can't cause bodily harm. If indeed the vehicle was travelling even the lower
speed, it would seem likely Paul and the other occupants of the Mercedes were trying to get away from something
considerably more sinister than photographers. With all the initial hue and cry about the paparazzi being a factor in
causing the accident, nearly all still photographs and videos shot before, during or after the tragedy have been seized.
In addition to the inexplicable delay in the arrival of the ambulance and emergency personnel, there were reportedly
serious difficulties in removing Diana and the other victims from the specially reinforced body of the limousine, which
led to an additional delay of nearly an hour. Also, again inexplicably, during this time Diana was left to wait on the
roadside while all the other victims were extricated from the wreckage before she was put into an ambulance. How
could anyone not question why Diana was not immediately airlifted out on an emergency medical helicopter but was
instead unconscionably made to wait and was then driven at a bizarrely slow pace by an ambulance crew who
supposedly couldn't find their way back to the hospital?! And this in a major modern city like Paris? Not bloody likely!
(The ambulance however did manage to conveniently ditch their police escort). Diana was very much alive after the
crash, and was in fact sitting up, gesticulating and at one point telling the medics to leave her alone; yet we are told
that all the most technologically advanced medical resources that our present-day world and her wealth could
command were not able to save her. The public should be told precisely how she died, of what specific medical
condition and exactly where and at what time her death occurred, as well as who was present. If she in fact died of
heart failure, and there was little or no initial emphasis on head wounds in her case, why was the supposed existence
of massive head wounds used as the reason Diana did not have an open casket funeral? Also questionable was the
fact that instead of being hooked up to state of the art life support equipment at Salpetriere Hospital, Diana was cut
open and her heart massaged directly by a physician.
Despite strenuous contortions and permutations of certain investigators attempting to make unwanted facts disappear
or to create the desired facts out of thin air in order to promulgate a bogus and fanciful theory regarding the cause of
the crash, apparently some members of the Paris police have decided to actually look at the evidence and listen to
the witnesses.
An bulletin from Paris dated September 17 does indeed indicate that Paris police now believe a second vehicle was in
fact involved in the crash, and possibly even a third. It states, "French television reported Tuesday that investigators
are considering the possibility that another car was involved in the crash. The report on France 2 said red shards of
glass, apparently from brake lights, were found at the crash scene - but that the Mercedes' brake lights were still
intact". Perhaps the Paris police force is reluctant to play along in covering up the awful truth about this miserable and
sickening political assassination.
Another item datelined Paris, September 17, reads in part as follows (emphasis added): Authorities investigating the
crash that killed Princess Diana are examining parts of a second car that were found at the scene of the accident, a
police source said today.
Pieces of a tail light and traces of paint that are not used on the Mercedes car that carried Diana were found at the
scene and are being tested in a police laboratory, the source said on condition of anonymity Similar traces were also
found on the rear-view mirror of the Mercedes, the source said. An AP news item from later the same day stated that
Paris police, based upon new evidence, are considering the possibility that even a third vehicle may have been
involved.
The London Times report mentioned at the beginning dated Sept. 21 says that there is a highly credible witness who
had provided significant and invaluable testimony on this aspect of the events to the Al Fayed lawyers several weeks
ago. This testimony was passed on to authorities but was apparently intentionally buried. Thankfully it has now
resurfaced. The newspaper quoted Gary Hunter, a British lawyer who was in Paris on Aug. 31 celebrating his wife's
birthday, as saying he saw a small black car fleeing at high speed from the crash that killed Princess Diana. He saw
the car from the window of his third-floor hotel room. Witnesses had initially said they saw a small, black hatchback,
possibly a Fiat Uno, near the smashed Mercedes. Hunter said he was watching television when he heard an ''almighty
crash'' at 12:25 a.m.
From his window he saw people running toward the tunnel and then saw a car turning from the area by the tunnel exit
and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon, the street below. ''I heard the screeching of tires. I saw a small dark car
turning the corner at the top of the road. I would say it was racing at 60-70 mph,'' Hunter stated.
''My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there. I am confident that the car was getting off the
scene. ... It looked quite sinister.'' (emphasis added.) Hunter said the car could have been a Fiat Uno or a Renault.
The Times article also said the lawyers passed the testimony on to investigators, who, incredibly enough, apparently
ignored it,.
Certain witnesses interviewed right after the tragedy on CNN said that immediately after the event some people were
around the car and that one man in a three piece suit screamed at them in French; that there was 'liquid on the
ground'. Understandably, the witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Of
course, if there was someone in the tunnel just moments after the crash, clearing away witnesses, he would almost
certainly be part of any assassination operation. It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was
injured, but that her life wasn't threatened, according to the French doctor who treated her for some time at the scene
before the ambulance took her to the hospital.
The doctor, who happened by and stopped to help, said she was "moaning, "gesturing in every direction".
Unconscious people do not moan and gesture in every direction. Early interviews with Dr. Frederic Mailliez also have
him saying that he saw the Princess "thrashing about", and that her condition "did not seem desperate". The
presence of this doctor who just happened to be at the crash site when the tragedy occurred could be viewed as
questionable; certainly it could have been a coincidence but it may not have been, and we have only his word as to
what actions he took which affected Diana's physical condition. His location gave him an incalculable ability to
drastically impact the course of events -- especially Diana's physical wellbeing.
In addition, the Fayed camp claims that at the hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person
in England, so obviously she was fairly conscious for quite some time after the crash. The crash occurred at just past
midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4 AM. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it implicate
someone perhaps?
Something is terribly wrong about the death of Princess Diana. The factual evidence presented herein makes it fairly
clear that her death was no accident. Diana was killed intentionally. Diana Spencer was a human being of course, with
some of the failings and weaknesses which that connotes. However, by most accounts she was a kind, decent person,
who demonstrated genuine empathy with the underprivileged, the infirm, the oppressed and the ignored; those
traditionally considered to be of lower social standing than she; also, for what it may be worth Diana was a true
"blueblood" royal of England's House of Stewart. Diana's constant and wholehearted support for numerous charitable
endeavors worldwide, and her extraordinary enthusiasm, energy and more recently direct political activism in so many
causes which sought to improve the lives and circumstances of great numbers of humanity was thoroughly
commendable, and clearly came from the heart. These definitely were not things she had to do. Diana seemed
determined to use her position for the greater good. The tremendous worldwide outpouring of sadness and grief on
the part of the general populace also came from the heart and was unprecedented, except perhaps for that following
the Kennedy assassination. The response was certainly an indication of Diana's formidable and widespread popularity.
Perhaps Princess Diana's potential independent financial power by way of her boyfriend, a wealthy movie producer,
was becoming a serious political threat to the status quo. The senior Mr. Fayed had been quite influential in bringing
about the downfall of the Conservative government which held power for so long in England This fact would have
hardly endeared him (or his son) to certain major British power brokers; in fact they detest Mr. Fayed and many liked
Diana hardly a little more.. Diana herself was becoming more and more overtly political in her campaign against the
use of land mines and in her visits to promote peace efforts in Bosnia, etc. This was a threat to the stated New World
Order objective of a destabilized Russia and a wary, edgy Western bloc (Europe, the U.S. and allies). The Royal
Family is a major player in the high-stakes game of position within the New World Order, and international arms sales
including land mines provide a substantial portion of their necessary operating capital.
Some objectives of the removal of Diana as a significant influence in our world could be: to keep Diana from
"interfering" with the further development and education of her two boys, Princes William and Harry; to derail Diana's
ever-more-effective international peace efforts (Great Britain is a major exporter of land mines); to send a message to
and set an example for other members of Royalty, other world political figures and the entire human population; and
to prevent a marriage to a member of the Saudi royal family.
The fact that her companion Mr. Al Fayed was "colored" or Semitic in race is probably a one of the lesser reasons.
The fact that Diana was of the House of Stewart, Britain's true and rightful royal family, and not of the House of
Windsor, the German (Hessian) royal family which usurped the British throne centuries ago and still holds power,
could be somewhat of a factor, as is the issue of who would exert the most influence over the further upbringing of her
two children, heirs to the British throne. As well, the Royal Family is rid of someone they unquestionably saw as a
troublemaker and a source of significant embarrassment; a thorn in their side and a monkeywrench in the(ir) works. In
addition, the mainly Conservative power structure in Britain despised her and her humanitarian and peacemaking
agenda and resented having to pay for her security. They and other governments may have had concerns about her
increasingly political activities in light of her great popularity, perhaps also concerns about her knowledge of (and
willingness to make public) certain information which could prove troublesome to the New (One) World Order, or
things of that nature.
Dodi Fayed had in fact purchased an engagement present for Diana the very day of their deaths, and a public
announcement of an engagement would undoubtedly have been imminent. It has been suggested by a U.K.
correspondent that this provided a powerful incentive in terms of time for British intelligence to "remove" Diana
immediately. Once the news of her engagement to Dodi was made public, any such "accident" would certainly be
considered much more suspicious. This jewelry was in fact initially reported missing from the wreckage (along with
approximately 30,000 francs). It reportedly later turned up and was given to the Spencer family. It may well have been
intentionally removed by operatives on the scene, and later replaced when it was realized that the existence of the gift
was already too widely known.
Even a brief but thorough study into the forces which have a measurable and significant impact upon the course of
international policy and the political and social conditions in which the human race exists, will disclose the continued
importance of royalty as one of such forces and prompt realization that its ability to influence the course of these
events is (still) quite substantial. As a general example of such influence, all contemporary national banks in existence
today such as The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank are modeled upon the Bank of England, founded by Britain's King
William 111 as a private, for-profit institution which loans money at interest to the national government to pay
government's operating costs, thus discreetly enforcing tremendous economic control (at least!) over entire human
populations.
The Royal Family is a unquestionably a key element of the George Bush's so-called New World Order, with a
considerable network of supporters firmly entrenched in the United States political system. Certainly both Ronald
Reagan and George Bush were unabashedly pro-Monarchy in great number of major foreign policy decisions
implemented during their terms. Most assuredly another ardent supporter is Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes scholar,
meaning that he was hand-picked, then groomed and educated at the expense of The Council of Rhodes to one day
take his place as a world leader dedicated to bringing about the fundamental objective of the Council -- a one-world
government. Mr. Clinton, indeed, seemed peculiarly upbeat when making his public statement about Princess Diana's
death; some reports had him "smirking" during his brief comments. Clinton also didn't even bother to offered any valid
reason at all for his refusal to attend Diana's funeral. Given that Princess Diana had recently focused considerable
energy and attention on the continuing unjustifiable use of land mines and was campaigning vigorously for their global
abolishment, the Clinton administration's current vehement opposition to the recent land mines treaty overwhelmingly
approved by 89 nations and widely supported internationally is certainly noteworthy and surprising, even if nothing
more than coincidence and bad timing politically for Clinton. Great Britain is one the world's leading exporters of land
mines, Bill! Their production and sale most definitely fill coffers of some of the British Royal Family's more ardent
political supporters.
Following are the four news stories mentioned above regarding the medical condition of "bodyguard" Trevor
Rees-Jones. I have emphasized the most important sections and have edited the items slightly for the sake of brevity.
In and of themselves these four items indicate deliberate distortion and manipulation of information. This can only be
an attempt to suppress the truth, and realistically, that truth could only be that Diana's death was not a tragic accident
but a deliberately and methodically planned and executed political murder. A host of other inconsistencies and highly
troubling questions have been raised which the protective and investigative agencies of both countries as well as the
mainstream media have almost totally sidestepped. This very fact in itself seems quite suspicious. It should be, indeed
it is imperative that the events and circumstances of the tragedy be thoroughly and completely investigated and
examined for the slightest indication that it may have been more than a shocking and virtually inexplicable accident! A
great number of such indications have just been cited, many of which have been known from the very beginning of the
terrible events.
When all is said and done, we have all lost someone special, and it appears clear that once again it was no accident,
but a deliberate act intended to deprive the human race of one of it's brighter luminaries and finer leaders. The late
Princess of Wales, Lady Diana Spencer, will be long and deeply missed.
Diana had started out as a constitutional liability, Diana was now actively attacking the constitutional elite. Diana was
threatening to destroy the British constitutional system which had done her so much harm and treated her as merely a
slab of meat, an incubator of heirs, a stooge of the House of Windsor, not only was Diana now seen to be attacking
the Public State, she was now doing something far, far more dangerous - she was attacking the most evil sector of the
Private State - the Arms industry. Diana was speaking out against land-mines and calling for a total worldwide ban on
their manufacture and sale. This was at a time when the Private state was doing a pretty good job of smothering
centrist and left-of-centre calls within the New Labour party for a ban. Here was Diana, stirring it all up, jet-setting
around the world, mingling with more ethical world-leaders, getting very good support.
World-wide Diana was quietly making many enemies. Her actions were particularly upsetting to the Arms Barons in
Britain, where lower-tech weaponry such as land mines is a big industrial deal. And of course, Arms Exporters are
monitored and aided by secret security services, occasionally in 'legitimate intelligence gathering', most often in the
protection of Western puppet-dictatorships, which provide markets for killing machines and provide an excuse for
Western Armed Forces to stay tooled-up. Diana had been the target of intelligence attacks before at the hands of
Britain's bumbling MI5, now she was to be targeted on a much higher level - she was to cross the path of the
world-wide secret government where intelligence agencies, big corporations, Royal Houses, powerful individuals,
neo-Chivalraic Orders, and powerful secret societies merge into a blur. The British wing was to act on both worldwide
and domestic concerns through the infamous MI6. With Diana's death, Charles and his mother would be set to gain
complete control over the Princes, the increasing popularity of Diana over Charles could be curtailed, the British Arms
Industry could lance an irritating boil.
Yet Diana was not alone in getting up the nose of the British system. Another individual was up to the same thing -
Muhammad Al-Fayed, who was quite instrumental in bringing to an end the Conservative Party's long-standing hold
on power in England. This was an Egyptian citizen who had power to destroy a British Government. The once ally of
the British establishment was now it's victorious enemy.
Al-Fayed, in his former days as establishment darling, had struck up an association with Diana. This was very much
renewed after Labour won the election and Diana and her sons took a holiday with Al-fayed on his substantial yacht.
This was really rubbing the establishment's nose in it! It was saying, 'I've undermined you, now I've taken your
country's most prized woman. The heir to your throne sees me as an Uncle'. Al-Fayed encouraged his playboy son,
Dodi, to strike up relations with the Princess and soon there was a much publicised romance.
It had now gone too far for the establishment. Diana had undermined the British constitutional system and was
threatening a key industry, and, to top it all, this Johnny Foreigner had made them look like fools. Not only this, a
possible Al-Fayed half-brother to the Heir would have been just too unsettling for the Establishment. Diana had to be
terminated. If they could get Dodi Fayed too, so much the better. All MI6 needed to do was pick it's moment. Diana's
Mercedes may well have been tampered with in some way to ensure she is killed (stunt teams alter the structure of
cars all the time). The paparazzi are fairly *amiable*, not an evil horde as they're being portrayed on the news at the
moment (this is almost certainly now a cover-story). Diana smiles at the cameras, she's sparkling. Diana and Dodi sit
in the back of the car. Dodi's 'Security Man' drives. A front seat passenger who may be British intelligence also rides,
possibly in some sort of shielding to protect him from the forthcoming impact. The car speeds away along on it's way
to a private house. The paparazzi follow on hair-dryer motorcycles but do nothing to adversely interfere with the car.
The Merc enters tunnel with little or no traffic. There are few possible witnesses about - the dark tunnel provides good
cover. The Motorcycles follow behind, not causing too much trouble. Possibly, a 'British Agent' (either Rees-Jones or
an external obstructor) forces crash, car crumples, as it may have been set-up to. The concrete tunnel is an ideal
place to smash up a car. Britain's Queen of Hearts is injured, later to die. Al-Fayed's son is dead on scene. Driver is
dead. Paparazzi on bike are rounded up by French Police. Ambulance is somewhat late. Only a few witnesses.
Information implicating paparazzi is disseminated by British intelligence through the BBC. Paparazzi are possible
witnesses to some of the the actual events. Their film-roles are taken from them.
MI6, I believe, accomplish mission...
Very early reports quoted witnesses as seeing/hearing an explosion, rather like a terrorist attack. Several witnesses
that were in the proximity of the tunnel just before the crash said they heard two distinct explosions, the first being
louder than the second. An American email respondent, echoing many others, spoke of an American woman who was
unable but to repeat the word 'explosion' almost as if searching for a different word, trying to say 'crashing' but aware
of the dishonesty in saying so. In frustration, she again said 'explosions'. Many people saw this America Couple on
CNN, and it was reported the day-after the crash on ITV's Teletext Service but this testimony was not heard again -
ever.
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. How nice.
It's been further pointed out to me that MI5 and MI6 are literally sworn to protect and uphold the monarchy and the
(German) royal family (lower case intended) 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 in 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 operatives 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.
Anonymous
The Death of Princess Diana
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 31. 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 Al Fayed's and the only one in the car now still alive.
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 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 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 Sept. 8 said that 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
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 Ress-Jones may never be able to remember the
events preceding the tragedy, and judging by the effects of the current "treatment" being given Mr. 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 18 news bulletin says that the judge investigating the deadly crash found Mr. 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 21, 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 Mr. 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. 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
Rees-Jones was aware that something was about to happen to the vehicle -- something life-threatening. As a
professional bodyguard Mr. 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 Rees-Jones do his job and reach over and turn off the ignition or if necessary, cold-cock Paul?
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 Mr. 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 Mr. Paul to become the scapegoat.
News published worldwide that Mr. 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 published today 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?'' Paul ''was not depressive and behaved perfectly,'' the paper quoted his mother as saying.
A Paris friend of 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Paul, told the French daily newspaper Le Figaro that
during the five years they lived together 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. She 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 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 Mr. Paul for two hours before the
accident and nothing indicated that Paul 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
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 Mr. Paul.
Joel Fleury, the owner of Le Grand Colbert, a local restaurant where Mr. Paul 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."
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 Paul wandered out of the front
entrance and started chatting to one of the paparazzi with whom he was acquainted. Paul wanted advice on which
flash to buy for a new camera he had recently purchased. Paul seemed "very relaxed", according to the
photographer, who had met Paul many times before. Over the next hour or so 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.
Part of the police case against the paparazzi is that once they arrived at the scene of the accident, they (the
paparazzi) failed to assist an injured person. Yet nearly all the photographers are claiming they were several hundred
yards behind the Mercedes and that they arrived after the first doctor was already on the scene, an off-duty doctor
who had been driving by named Frederic Mailliez.
An email communique sent to an Internet discussion group by someone claiming to be of the photographers who was
following the Mercedes the night of August 31 says that he has not only fled the crash site but also the country,
apparently because after he took several pictures of the wreckage and the victims, a very alive Diana spoke some
extremely chilling words to him. Using an acknowledged alias and routing his letter through an intermediary for his
protection, "Mr. Merceilles" declares (mistakes uncorrected), "I am one of photographer who followed Diana and her
companion Dodi Fayed until their death in a car-crash. (Paris tunnel -- 31 august 1997) I was lucky at that time, while
the accident took place, I am 60 metres from the spot. When I heard a very loud sound came from the tunnel, I jumped
from one of my friend's bike (who is now detained) to inspect the scene. I could see a hand of someone waving at us
to seek some help. With a terrible shock, I found that was the hand of princess.
"I could not see her face clearly, as a warm blood streaming all over her face. She still alive and crying painfully. With
"discourage feeling", I forced myself to take some picture of her -- (the pictures and negative are with me now and I
am not intend to sell it for profit). From the distance, I could see people already gathering to see what was happening
there. I do not understand the world, for accusing us (photographers) for Diana and Dodi death. As a matter of fact, It
looks like all people of the world pointing at us as we are the greatest criminal of a crime that we did not responsible. I
still remember the words came from Diana's throat before she died. "Help... someone outside plan to kill us".
A spokesperson for the Fayeds and the Ritz said that although Dodi had been "examined" by a pathologist in Britain
before he was buried, this had not been a full postmortem examination, and that no blood samples were taken.
Lawyers for the photographers have questioned such procedures. "The behavior of passengers in the investigation of
a car accident is very important," said one. Another said he would very much like to know how much, if anything, Dodi
had drunk that evening and whether he would have been lucid.
Of course absolutely no postmortem of any kind, which could precisely indicate the direct cause of death, was done
on the body of Princess Diana. Paris police have said that after the accident occurred the ambulance took nearly half
an hour to get to the scene. Also the police have confirmed that they were escorting the ambulance back to the
hospital but then became separated. The ambulance arrived at the hospital much later and the drivers claimed to
have lost their way! This was reported on many European radio channels. Why aren't the identities and records of
these so-called ambulance drivers being released?
Witness accounts recorded by TV crews directly after the tragedy stated that there was an initial impact or explosion,
then the sound of metal scraping followed by the sound of a very loud crash when the vehicle hit the tunnel structure.
These descriptions were edited out of subsequent broadcasts and have not been heard since. What was the initial
sound caused by? If a massive crash could somehow be instigated, the time, location, and condition of the
armor-plated limousine would assuredly create some delays in any occupants not killed receiving medical attention,
which itself could be of a terminal sort administered by specially assigned agents who, while returning to the hospital
in the ambulance, inconceivably lose their way!
Has the scenario being presented -- of all those photographers riding motorcycles and trying to take pictures of the
inside of a car with tinted windows travelling at 120 MPH, at night, in a dim narrow tunnel -- been seriously called into
question, as it seems it should ? Does anyone really believe that one or more of these paparazzi on motorcycles
actually attempted to cut off a large automobile at such speeds? (Nonetheless it's now certain that at least one other
vehicle did intentionally impact the Mercedes in the tunnel.) Does it seem the least bit likely that Diana, Dodi and their
bodyguard would drive off in a vehicle with a man supposedly so completely inebriated? Why has it been claimed that
Mr. Paul sped rapidly away from The Ritz to evade the paparazzi when there was no antagonism or ill will
demonstrated before the Mercedes left The Ritz and video footage shows the car leaving at a reasonable speed?
Although earlier reports had the Mercedes going 120 miles per hour, more recent bulletins from Paris say experts
estimated the car's speed at about 75 miles per hour. Why would anyone drive at such a dangerous speed just to get
away from photographers? Photographs can't cause bodily harm. If indeed the vehicle was travelling even the lower
speed, it would seem likely Paul and the other occupants of the Mercedes were trying to get away from something
considerably more sinister than photographers. With all the initial hue and cry about the paparazzi being a factor in
causing the accident, nearly all still photographs and videos shot before, during or after the tragedy have been seized.
In addition to the inexplicable delay in the arrival of the ambulance and emergency personnel, there were reportedly
serious difficulties in removing Diana and the other victims from the specially reinforced body of the limousine, which
led to an additional delay of nearly an hour. Also, again inexplicably, during this time Diana was left to wait on the
roadside while all the other victims were extricated from the wreckage before she was put into an ambulance. How
could anyone not question why Diana was not immediately airlifted out on an emergency medical helicopter but was
instead unconscionably made to wait and was then driven at a bizarrely slow pace by an ambulance crew who
supposedly couldn't find their way back to the hospital?! And this in a major modern city like Paris? Not bloody likely!
(The ambulance however did manage to conveniently ditch their police escort). Diana was very much alive after the
crash, and was in fact sitting up, gesticulating and at one point telling the medics to leave her alone; yet we are told
that all the most technologically advanced medical resources that our present-day world and her wealth could
command were not able to save her. The public should be told precisely how she died, of what specific medical
condition and exactly where and at what time her death occurred, as well as who was present. If she in fact died of
heart failure, and there was little or no initial emphasis on head wounds in her case, why was the supposed existence
of massive head wounds used as the reason Diana did not have an open casket funeral? Also questionable was the
fact that instead of being hooked up to state of the art life support equipment at Salpetriere Hospital, Diana was cut
open and her heart massaged directly by a physician.
Despite strenuous contortions and permutations of certain investigators attempting to make unwanted facts disappear
or to create the desired facts out of thin air in order to promulgate a bogus and fanciful theory regarding the cause of
the crash, apparently some members of the Paris police have decided to actually look at the evidence and listen to
the witnesses.
An bulletin from Paris dated September 17 does indeed indicate that Paris police now believe a second vehicle was in
fact involved in the crash, and possibly even a third. It states, "French television reported Tuesday that investigators
are considering the possibility that another car was involved in the crash. The report on France 2 said red shards of
glass, apparently from brake lights, were found at the crash scene - but that the Mercedes' brake lights were still
intact". Perhaps the Paris police force is reluctant to play along in covering up the awful truth about this miserable and
sickening political assassination.
Another item datelined Paris, September 17, reads in part as follows (emphasis added): Authorities investigating the
crash that killed Princess Diana are examining parts of a second car that were found at the scene of the accident, a
police source said today.
Pieces of a tail light and traces of paint that are not used on the Mercedes car that carried Diana were found at the
scene and are being tested in a police laboratory, the source said on condition of anonymity Similar traces were also
found on the rear-view mirror of the Mercedes, the source said. An AP news item from later the same day stated that
Paris police, based upon new evidence, are considering the possibility that even a third vehicle may have been
involved.
The London Times report mentioned at the beginning dated Sept. 21 says that there is a highly credible witness who
had provided significant and invaluable testimony on this aspect of the events to the Al Fayed lawyers several weeks
ago. This testimony was passed on to authorities but was apparently intentionally buried. Thankfully it has now
resurfaced. The newspaper quoted Gary Hunter, a British lawyer who was in Paris on Aug. 31 celebrating his wife's
birthday, as saying he saw a small black car fleeing at high speed from the crash that killed Princess Diana. He saw
the car from the window of his third-floor hotel room. Witnesses had initially said they saw a small, black hatchback,
possibly a Fiat Uno, near the smashed Mercedes. Hunter said he was watching television when he heard an ''almighty
crash'' at 12:25 a.m.
From his window he saw people running toward the tunnel and then saw a car turning from the area by the tunnel exit
and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon, the street below. ''I heard the screeching of tires. I saw a small dark car
turning the corner at the top of the road. I would say it was racing at 60-70 mph,'' Hunter stated.
''My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there. I am confident that the car was getting off the
scene. ... It looked quite sinister.'' (emphasis added.) Hunter said the car could have been a Fiat Uno or a Renault.
The Times article also said the lawyers passed the testimony on to investigators, who, incredibly enough, apparently
ignored it,.
Certain witnesses interviewed right after the tragedy on CNN said that immediately after the event some people were
around the car and that one man in a three piece suit screamed at them in French; that there was 'liquid on the
ground'. Understandably, the witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Of
course, if there was someone in the tunnel just moments after the crash, clearing away witnesses, he would almost
certainly be part of any assassination operation. It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was
injured, but that her life wasn't threatened, according to the French doctor who treated her for some time at the scene
before the ambulance took her to the hospital.
The doctor, who happened by and stopped to help, said she was "moaning, "gesturing in every direction".
Unconscious people do not moan and gesture in every direction. Early interviews with Dr. Frederic Mailliez also have
him saying that he saw the Princess "thrashing about", and that her condition "did not seem desperate". The
presence of this doctor who just happened to be at the crash site when the tragedy occurred could be viewed as
questionable; certainly it could have been a coincidence but it may not have been, and we have only his word as to
what actions he took which affected Diana's physical condition. His location gave him an incalculable ability to
drastically impact the course of events -- especially Diana's physical wellbeing.
In addition, the Fayed camp claims that at the hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person
in England, so obviously she was fairly conscious for quite some time after the crash. The crash occurred at just past
midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4 AM. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it implicate
someone perhaps?
Something is terribly wrong about the death of Princess Diana. The factual evidence presented herein makes it fairly
clear that her death was no accident. Diana was killed intentionally. Diana Spencer was a human being of course, with
some of the failings and weaknesses which that connotes. However, by most accounts she was a kind, decent person,
who demonstrated genuine empathy with the underprivileged, the infirm, the oppressed and the ignored; those
traditionally considered to be of lower social standing than she; also, for what it may be worth Diana was a true
"blueblood" royal of England's House of Stewart. Diana's constant and wholehearted support for numerous charitable
endeavors worldwide, and her extraordinary enthusiasm, energy and more recently direct political activism in so many
causes which sought to improve the lives and circumstances of great numbers of humanity was thoroughly
commendable, and clearly came from the heart. These definitely were not things she had to do. Diana seemed
determined to use her position for the greater good. The tremendous worldwide outpouring of sadness and grief on
the part of the general populace also came from the heart and was unprecedented, except perhaps for that following
the Kennedy assassination. The response was certainly an indication of Diana's formidable and widespread popularity.
Perhaps Princess Diana's potential independent financial power by way of her boyfriend, a wealthy movie producer,
was becoming a serious political threat to the status quo. The senior Mr. Fayed had been quite influential in bringing
about the downfall of the Conservative government which held power for so long in England This fact would have
hardly endeared him (or his son) to certain major British power brokers; in fact they detest Mr. Fayed and many liked
Diana hardly a little more.. Diana herself was becoming more and more overtly political in her campaign against the
use of land mines and in her visits to promote peace efforts in Bosnia, etc. This was a threat to the stated New World
Order objective of a destabilized Russia and a wary, edgy Western bloc (Europe, the U.S. and allies). The Royal
Family is a major player in the high-stakes game of position within the New World Order, and international arms sales
including land mines provide a substantial portion of their necessary operating capital.
Some objectives of the removal of Diana as a significant influence in our world could be: to keep Diana from
"interfering" with the further development and education of her two boys, Princes William and Harry; to derail Diana's
ever-more-effective international peace efforts (Great Britain is a major exporter of land mines); to send a message to
and set an example for other members of Royalty, other world political figures and the entire human population; and
to prevent a marriage to a member of the Saudi royal family.
The fact that her companion Mr. Al Fayed was "colored" or Semitic in race is probably a one of the lesser reasons.
The fact that Diana was of the House of Stewart, Britain's true and rightful royal family, and not of the House of
Windsor, the German (Hessian) royal family which usurped the British throne centuries ago and still holds power,
could be somewhat of a factor, as is the issue of who would exert the most influence over the further upbringing of her
two children, heirs to the British throne. As well, the Royal Family is rid of someone they unquestionably saw as a
troublemaker and a source of significant embarrassment; a thorn in their side and a monkeywrench in the(ir) works. In
addition, the mainly Conservative power structure in Britain despised her and her humanitarian and peacemaking
agenda and resented having to pay for her security. They and other governments may have had concerns about her
increasingly political activities in light of her great popularity, perhaps also concerns about her knowledge of (and
willingness to make public) certain information which could prove troublesome to the New (One) World Order, or
things of that nature.
Dodi Fayed had in fact purchased an engagement present for Diana the very day of their deaths, and a public
announcement of an engagement would undoubtedly have been imminent. It has been suggested by a U.K.
correspondent that this provided a powerful incentive in terms of time for British intelligence to "remove" Diana
immediately. Once the news of her engagement to Dodi was made public, any such "accident" would certainly be
considered much more suspicious. This jewelry was in fact initially reported missing from the wreckage (along with
approximately 30,000 francs). It reportedly later turned up and was given to the Spencer family. It may well have been
intentionally removed by operatives on the scene, and later replaced when it was realized that the existence of the gift
was already too widely known.
Even a brief but thorough study into the forces which have a measurable and significant impact upon the course of
international policy and the political and social conditions in which the human race exists, will disclose the continued
importance of royalty as one of such forces and prompt realization that its ability to influence the course of these
events is (still) quite substantial. As a general example of such influence, all contemporary national banks in existence
today such as The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank are modeled upon the Bank of England, founded by Britain's King
William 111 as a private, for-profit institution which loans money at interest to the national government to pay
government's operating costs, thus discreetly enforcing tremendous economic control (at least!) over entire human
populations.
The Royal Family is a unquestionably a key element of the George Bush's so-called New World Order, with a
considerable network of supporters firmly entrenched in the United States political system. Certainly both Ronald
Reagan and George Bush were unabashedly pro-Monarchy in great number of major foreign policy decisions
implemented during their terms. Most assuredly another ardent supporter is Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes scholar,
meaning that he was hand-picked, then groomed and educated at the expense of The Council of Rhodes to one day
take his place as a world leader dedicated to bringing about the fundamental objective of the Council -- a one-world
government. Mr. Clinton, indeed, seemed peculiarly upbeat when making his public statement about Princess Diana's
death; some reports had him "smirking" during his brief comments. Clinton also didn't even bother to offered any valid
reason at all for his refusal to attend Diana's funeral. Given that Princess Diana had recently focused considerable
energy and attention on the continuing unjustifiable use of land mines and was campaigning vigorously for their global
abolishment, the Clinton administration's current vehement opposition to the recent land mines treaty overwhelmingly
approved by 89 nations and widely supported internationally is certainly noteworthy and surprising, even if nothing
more than coincidence and bad timing politically for Clinton. Great Britain is one the world's leading exporters of land
mines, Bill! Their production and sale most definitely fill coffers of some of the British Royal Family's more ardent
political supporters.
Following are the four news stories mentioned above regarding the medical condition of "bodyguard" Trevor
Rees-Jones. I have emphasized the most important sections and have edited the items slightly for the sake of brevity.
In and of themselves these four items indicate deliberate distortion and manipulation of information. This can only be
an attempt to suppress the truth, and realistically, that truth could only be that Diana's death was not a tragic accident
but a deliberately and methodically planned and executed political murder. A host of other inconsistencies and highly
troubling questions have been raised which the protective and investigative agencies of both countries as well as the
mainstream media have almost totally sidestepped. This very fact in itself seems quite suspicious. It should be, indeed
it is imperative that the events and circumstances of the tragedy be thoroughly and completely investigated and
examined for the slightest indication that it may have been more than a shocking and virtually inexplicable accident! A
great number of such indications have just been cited, many of which have been known from the very beginning of the
terrible events.
When all is said and done, we have all lost someone special, and it appears clear that once again it was no accident,
but a deliberate act intended to deprive the human race of one of it's brighter luminaries and finer leaders. The late
Princess of Wales, Lady Diana Spencer, will be long and deeply missed.
Diana had started out as a constitutional liability, Diana was now actively attacking the constitutional elite. Diana was
threatening to destroy the British constitutional system which had done her so much harm and treated her as merely a
slab of meat, an incubator of heirs, a stooge of the House of Windsor, not only was Diana now seen to be attacking
the Public State, she was now doing something far, far more dangerous - she was attacking the most evil sector of the
Private State - the Arms industry. Diana was speaking out against land-mines and calling for a total worldwide ban on
their manufacture and sale. This was at a time when the Private state was doing a pretty good job of smothering
centrist and left-of-centre calls within the New Labour party for a ban. Here was Diana, stirring it all up, jet-setting
around the world, mingling with more ethical world-leaders, getting very good support.
World-wide Diana was quietly making many enemies. Her actions were particularly upsetting to the Arms Barons in
Britain, where lower-tech weaponry such as land mines is a big industrial deal. And of course, Arms Exporters are
monitored and aided by secret security services, occasionally in 'legitimate intelligence gathering', most often in the
protection of Western puppet-dictatorships, which provide markets for killing machines and provide an excuse for
Western Armed Forces to stay tooled-up. Diana had been the target of intelligence attacks before at the hands of
Britain's bumbling MI5, now she was to be targeted on a much higher level - she was to cross the path of the
world-wide secret government where intelligence agencies, big corporations, Royal Houses, powerful individuals,
neo-Chivalraic Orders, and powerful secret societies merge into a blur. The British wing was to act on both worldwide
and domestic concerns through the infamous MI6. With Diana's death, Charles and his mother would be set to gain
complete control over the Princes, the increasing popularity of Diana over Charles could be curtailed, the British Arms
Industry could lance an irritating boil.
Yet Diana was not alone in getting up the nose of the British system. Another individual was up to the same thing -
Muhammad Al-Fayed, who was quite instrumental in bringing to an end the Conservative Party's long-standing hold
on power in England. This was an Egyptian citizen who had power to destroy a British Government. The once ally of
the British establishment was now it's victorious enemy.
Al-Fayed, in his former days as establishment darling, had struck up an association with Diana. This was very much
renewed after Labour won the election and Diana and her sons took a holiday with Al-fayed on his substantial yacht.
This was really rubbing the establishment's nose in it! It was saying, 'I've undermined you, now I've taken your
country's most prized woman. The heir to your throne sees me as an Uncle'. Al-Fayed encouraged his playboy son,
Dodi, to strike up relations with the Princess and soon there was a much publicised romance.
It had now gone too far for the establishment. Diana had undermined the British constitutional system and was
threatening a key industry, and, to top it all, this Johnny Foreigner had made them look like fools. Not only this, a
possible Al-Fayed half-brother to the Heir would have been just too unsettling for the Establishment. Diana had to be
terminated. If they could get Dodi Fayed too, so much the better. All MI6 needed to do was pick it's moment. Diana's
Mercedes may well have been tampered with in some way to ensure she is killed (stunt teams alter the structure of
cars all the time). The paparazzi are fairly *amiable*, not an evil horde as they're being portrayed on the news at the
moment (this is almost certainly now a cover-story). Diana smiles at the cameras, she's sparkling. Diana and Dodi sit
in the back of the car. Dodi's 'Security Man' drives. A front seat passenger who may be British intelligence also rides,
possibly in some sort of shielding to protect him from the forthcoming impact. The car speeds away along on it's way
to a private house. The paparazzi follow on hair-dryer motorcycles but do nothing to adversely interfere with the car.
The Merc enters tunnel with little or no traffic. There are few possible witnesses about - the dark tunnel provides good
cover. The Motorcycles follow behind, not causing too much trouble. Possibly, a 'British Agent' (either Rees-Jones or
an external obstructor) forces crash, car crumples, as it may have been set-up to. The concrete tunnel is an ideal
place to smash up a car. Britain's Queen of Hearts is injured, later to die. Al-Fayed's son is dead on scene. Driver is
dead. Paparazzi on bike are rounded up by French Police. Ambulance is somewhat late. Only a few witnesses.
Information implicating paparazzi is disseminated by British intelligence through the BBC. Paparazzi are possible
witnesses to some of the the actual events. Their film-roles are taken from them.
MI6, I believe, accomplish mission...
Very early reports quoted witnesses as seeing/hearing an explosion, rather like a terrorist attack. Several witnesses
that were in the proximity of the tunnel just before the crash said they heard two distinct explosions, the first being
louder than the second. An American email respondent, echoing many others, spoke of an American woman who was
unable but to repeat the word 'explosion' almost as if searching for a different word, trying to say 'crashing' but aware
of the dishonesty in saying so. In frustration, she again said 'explosions'. Many people saw this America Couple on
CNN, and it was reported the day-after the crash on ITV's Teletext Service but this testimony was not heard again -
ever.
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. How nice.
It's been further pointed out to me that MI5 and MI6 are literally sworn to protect and uphold the monarchy and the
(German) royal family (lower case intended) 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 in 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 operatives 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.
Anonymous
