Princess Di was a Queen. So what ever happened to [Archive]

View Full Version : Princess Di was a Queen. So what ever happened to

ngawaka19

28-06-2007, 04:44 PM

Princess Di was a Queen of the people in my books (some may disagree, thats ok)What I'd really like to know is whatever happened to Mahommad Al Fayed's personnel investigations of his sons death? David Icke says that Mohammad was in with the whole Freemason structure. In Davids video 'Freedom Road', he mentions that he has a friend (didn't mention names) that performed satanic rituals and that in the late 80's, in Belgium, at a location called 'Castle of Darkness', she (Davids friend) performed a satanic ritual for a group of dignitaries. Amongst those dignitaries was Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, Tony Blair and Mohammad Al Fayed. This was absolutely intriguing to me. This tells me that Mohammad was a part of the group that killed Dianna, and Dodi. So why would Mohammad kill his own son? Was it unexpected that Dodi got caught in the cross fire? Was MAF's investigation all a crock? This is so damned interesting to me. When Diana left us, I remember exactly what I was doing when the news came across the radio. I was putting a set of bunks up in my sons room. I stopped in my tracks and it hit me unexpectedly, I wept. I had never thought too much about this woman until she was gone. I'd always known about all the good she'd done and her endless duel with her in laws (which I admired her for). So I'd be grateful to hear what everyone thinks and knows about this particular topic. Thanks.

infinitetruth

28-06-2007, 05:59 PM

I also remember - it was halfway through a news report and I was still waking up that morning - they hadn't even said who had died and i was hoping it was charles rather than diana. When I heard it was diana I was like, why her? Why take her? She did so much, she would have done so much more for the world and the charities - no one seems to take much notice of the needy anymore, certainly not any celebs I know.

I don't believe that mohammed was involved and if he was it was unknowingly. He was given evidence that dianas death was a MI6 op (or something) but the evidence was clearly false - something that anne machor said was a classic MI5 move to quash conspiracy. She said from this, there is an obvious operation going on surrounding diana.

Perhaps this is true - but I hear people often saying, why something as unreliable and as complicated as a car crash? And I reply thats exactly why - car crashes are mundane, no one would suspect that.

What is the most telling is the fact that the security cameras didn't work, and there were many. I think that sometimes we in danger of making the conspiracy too wide and too large, like everyone's involved everyone is part of it. I just don't think that.

For instance in Diana's secret tapes she said that when she was pregnant with Harry her and charles were closer than ever because charles thought she was having a girl. She said his first words when harry was born was 'oh god its a boy' and 'oh god, its got ginger hair too' and diana said he distanced himself completely from her after that. So obviously, not everything is under their control.

anoninnyc

28-06-2007, 10:28 PM

infinitetruth, why did charles want a girl?

and i agree that it was m15, m16 or whatever you call the british special ops.... done for the royal family and that evil evil queen.

i do not believe in the concept of royalty as being legitimate. i find the british royal family repugnant, yet diana was different. she was a queen of hearts. she was a human being and i felt for her. i was really sad when she died, which is not expected from me. i couldn't care less about celebrities and stuff like that. I knew right away that she was murdered....... and when i heard that the cameras went out i was like come on. she was abused by those monsters and they definitely killed her, the royal family that is, anyone else is just an accomplice.

mk72

28-06-2007, 11:51 PM

The friend he was talking about was Arizona Wilder and the interview I saw with her she said she overheard that there was a deal struck between the Queen and Mohammed Al Fayed and she remembered it because she couldn't understand because that was when Diana was still married to Charles. If she was sacrificed and it was done so symbolicly - it must have been planned since her birth with her family's and Dodi's knowledge. If you read up on the symbolic "coincidences" you can't help but think this

ngawaka19

29-06-2007, 12:41 AM

Do you know anymore about the deal between TQ and MAF?

There are so many unanswered questions.

I always wonder what those 2 boys think. I wonder what they think about their grandparents and whether they have strong doubts about the legitimacy of the information given to them. Surely being Diana's sons they knew how strongly she felt about the family, media and the secret services involved with the family. I guess its easy for the family to lie because of the huge and endless speculations that are cast by the media.

Some of the questions that I have are,

Was Diana pregnant with Dodi's child at the time of her death?
Has William thought about doing his own personal enquiry?
Is Harry really Charles son?
Was Diana going to marry Dodi and was that the reason for her murder, as is her being pregnant? Or did she know like JFK something about the Illuminati that she was about to uncover? Was her political involvement on a much huger scale than what the public knew, if this is the case it means there would of been a syndicate or group that she would of been working with, towards being able to expose the king and queen and there protectors.

Did anyone see the film 'Queen'? Not that I believe anything in this film as there is no way it would of been released without the Queens endorsement, but what they have suggested in this film is that the Queen is basically in the dark and that the king is the main player and they make him out to be an absolute hateful person. Do others believe this?

My brother had a visionary dream a few years back, (he always does and scarily it always comes out true). He wrote me a letter about it, ( we live in different cities) he said that Charles will not be king because he is a divorcee and that the throne would go to Wills. But William will try to denounce the Monarch and put closure on the whole structure of the royal family. Because of this the henchmen (keepers) will somehow create a 'situation' that will defame Wills and the throne will actually go to Harry. And my brothers dream was before Harry wore the Natzi uniform and got busted for pot.

No doubt that this hierarchy must end, and I say this based on the evidence David Iche has shown us. But I do believe in having a blue blood line, and if anyone believes in this, then who does one turn to for this blood line, is there such a blood line? a true original royal family, who's true identity has been buried and made invisible, possibly thru having to survive, hopefully being protected until the truth can come out. Would anyone know of any literature that has touched on a subject such as this?

I am very interested in lineage and have always wondered why the royal family had German blood in them. When I had a look at Diana's whakapapa(lineage) I was amazed as she had more English blood in her than any Winsor. Very interesting I thought at the time.

If anyone has any literature on this topic, or even has caught whispers or myths to this being possible, I would most appreciate it.

love and light
ngawaka

mk72

29-06-2007, 01:35 AM

Do you know anymore about the deal between TQ and MAF?

There are so many unanswered questions.

I always wonder what those 2 boys think. I wonder what they think about their grandparents and whether they have strong doubts about the legitimacy of the information given to them. Surely being Diana's sons they knew how strongly she felt about the family, media and the secret services involved with the family. I guess its easy for the family to lie because of the huge and endless speculations that are cast by the media.

Some of the questions that I have are,

Was Diana pregnant with Dodi's child at the time of her death?

Has William thought about doing his own personal enquiry?
Is Harry really Charles son?
Was Diana going to marry Dodi and was that the reason for her murder, as is her being pregnant? Or did she know like JFK something about the Illuminati that she was about to uncover? Was her political involvement on a much huger scale than what the public knew, if this is the case it means there would of been a syndicate or group that she would of been working with, towards being able to expose the king and queen and there protectors.

Did anyone see the film 'Queen'? Not that I believe anything in this film as there is no way it would of been released without the Queens endorsement, but what they have suggested in this film is that the Queen is basically in the dark and that the king is the main player and they make him out to be an absolute hateful person. Do others believe this?

My brother had a visionary dream a few years back, (he always does and scarily it always comes out true). He wrote me a letter about it, ( we live in different cities) he said that Charles will not be king because he is a divorcee and that the throne would go to Wills. But William will try to denounce the Monarch and put closure on the whole structure of the royal family. Because of this the henchmen (keepers) will somehow create a 'situation' that will defame Wills and the throne will actually go to Harry. And my brothers dream was before Harry wore the Natzi uniform and got busted for pot.

No doubt that this hierarchy must end, and I say this based on the evidence David Iche has shown us. But I do believe in having a blue blood line, and if anyone believes in this, then who does one turn to for this blood line, is there such a blood line? a true original royal family, who's true identity has been buried and made invisible, possibly thru having to survive, hopefully being protected until the truth can come out. Would anyone know of any literature that has touched on a subject such as this?

I am very interested in lineage and have always wondered why the royal family had German blood in them. When I had a look at Diana's whakapapa(lineage) I was amazed as she had more English blood in her than any Winsor. Very interesting I thought at the time.

If anyone has any literature on this topic, or even has caught whispers or myths to this being possible, I would most appreciate it.

love and light
ngawaka

Very good questions you're on the right track. It's fucking 2 in the morning here, I will look at the interview tommorow and quote word for word what she said and post it for you. Who knows if it's the truth but I tend to believe what she says (gut feeling)

ngawaka19

29-06-2007, 02:16 PM

Thanks.

saturn

29-06-2007, 05:00 PM

i have always found the william and harry thing strange. how much do they know? are they mind-controlled? it seems to me that they are being controlled somehow. especially william; there's something strange about him. he's not the same person he was before he went to university in scotland. after his first year there, it was said he was very unhappy and wanted to quit, but it was never articulated why he was unhappy. look at the photos of william before he went to university and the photos of him after he was there. the first time i saw him after he had enrolled at university was when he did that photoshoot for his 21st birthday. i couldn't believe it was the same person. in the space of a year or two he had totally changed. he was balding at the speed of light and losing his looks; looking more and more like a windsor and less like his mother. and it just seemed to me that he was acting, putting up a front....can't quite put my finger on it; but his true character seemed very much hidden in that shell of his body and increasingly as the years have gone by i get the feeling that he doesn't even know who he is anymore. the true him is hidden in there somewhere and he doesn't know where he is. right now, i feel he is surrounded by these personalities that are on show for the watching world. there is something quite unauthentic there. it's like he is functioning automatically, like a robot and that his mind has been deeply traumatised and the real him needs to come out for some much-needed healing or else he is going to snap and have a breakdown. i find it interesting looking at his eyes. they are not reptilian like all the other illuminati puppets; i feel he is not one of them but is their victim. well anyway, when i look at his eyes they always seem very deeply and permanently unhappy. he is being pushed around and controlled.

ngawaka19, i found your comments about william being pushed aside and the throne going to harry interesting. because harry seems to be the least traumatised of the two, by that i mean the one who is less controlled by them and as a result is not wanted and is seen as a black sheep and embarrassment. i read in the biggest secret that not only was diana a multiple but so are william and harry. a psychic acquaintance of mine who has these visions she can't control, has told me that she saw a vision of the structure of william's mind and she said it was like a fractured mirror and she heard a voice saying, 'he is one split into many' meaning that his mind is split into many parts; different personalities. she says that she identified at least six alters: the soldier, the charity guy, the one preparing to be king, the party guy, e.t.c.

basically i feel that sooner or later there is going to be some kind of breakdown on william's part. what has been going on can't continue. i don't think he will continue to conform. despite the efforts of the illuminati. he is not one of them, despite being born into the bloodline. neither is harry. i remember on a recent interview he said i don't think we'll ever know what happened in that tunnel, i wonder about it all the time. this got people talking, and clarence house was very quick to put out a statement saying that his comments should not be misinterpreted and that harry believes his mother died in a simple car accident.

mmmm....

ngawaka19

29-06-2007, 06:30 PM

mk72

01-07-2007, 09:50 PM

Hi
Sorry it took so long, my internet was off. Here part of the interview.
Interview with a mother goddess:
AW: ”Something else that sticks out in my mind sometime in the 80’s I saw a very dark man, he was Arabic , seems to be Arabic or Egyptian, and I hear the name Fayed being mentioned and the Queen mother was there and I called her the black Queen and she and he were talking very seriously and at some length and in the subject they were mentioning Diana and they were mentioning his son Dodi, and at the time I did not know who Dodi was, I never saw her at any ritual. This took place at Balmoral Castle. I heard them talking about a marriage between the two and at the time I didn’t understand, because I knew Diana was married to Charles.
DI: “Where do you think the story of Diana fits into all this in terms of the rituals you know about and the Royal family background you talk about? What was that all about, what happened in Paris?”
AW: “Diana was a ritual sacrifice because she’s named after the goddess Diana, she was chosen from before birth for the purpose which she served. I understand and very well, and am empathetic towards Diana because in a way it parallels what happened to me, to have served your purpose, had two children and then be tossed aside. To her horror, though she, obviously never attending a ritual, she knew something was happening and she knew what was going on and could not be trusted to be at a ritual. Anyway I don’t think Diana would have attended a ritual, I don’t think they could get her to cooperate, because actually she saw for herself that this was going on after she married Charles.”
DI: “Is there anyway when Diana was married to Charles without attending a blood ritual that she could’ve seen him or one of the others become a reptile?”
AW: “They have a tendency when they’re asleep to shape shift they have to consciously hold they’re form and when they are asleep they have a tendency to not hold human form and to shape shift into reptilians. And there could be other things that happen, you know I’m thinking about the times that Diana would have gone through a menstrual period, well that would have also really triggered some of these people in the royal family that are reptilian around her to want to shape shift or any woman, any human woman in that household that would be having a period, that sent of blood would tend to cause a momentary shape shift.”
DI: “What was the whole, what appears to be a ceremony surrounding her assassination, what was that about?” The rumors that she was pregnant and the Egyptian Dodi Fayed, and the place where it all happened which is an ancient sacrificial site to the goddess Diana, how does that fit in together with the rituals that you know about?”
AW: “Okay – the crone aspect of the goddess is Hikathi (not sure of the spelling) and the day of Hikathi is August 13th, and what is very prevalent in this and with the Illuminati and what they have done with the Druidism and other like Egyptian religions is that they like to mirror the numbers and so with example with the goddess Isis her number is 18 when you mirror it, it’s 81 and that is the number of the sister of Isis Nefhfis (not sure of the spelling). Nefhfis was considered the evil sister to Isis. With Hikathi what I think happened here is that she was sacrificed and it was a very important sacrifice because three people died, and it was a picture of the triad of Isis, Osiris and Horus to them. Horus being the unborn child of Dodi Fayed that Diana carried and was tree months old, which is another important number. Sacrificial babies are taken in uteri in 3, 5 and 7 months. And when I hear about this it was a deal that I understood now that had gone down and she had to die in that tunnel because it’s the passage way for Diana the goddess and she died at the 13th pillar again because of Hikathi. She died on the 31st because it’s the mirror image of 13. My understanding of what I get because I was told by Guede Rothchild (not sure of the spelling) last, beginning of February when he was in this country when he tried to impregnate me again and tried to program me again that he was in the tunnel that night, he had to be there, because not only was it a ritual death of Diana, this was also about taking her soul, he was taking the soul of Diana witch no one else there could do, whoever was present there could not do it – he could do it he was in France.”
DI: “What would be the purpose of creating such a clear and definite ritual?”
AW: ”Because it has to be done as a ritual, because they were going to take her soul. It had to happen in that way in that year, and there is a timeline to all of this.”

She goes on to say that it was possible for her to be pregnant without knowing it, because this has happened to her. Then they discuss Diana being a multiple and mind controlled.

DI: “Do you think Diana’s two children were Charles’ children?”
AW:” I do not believe that. I do believe the son William is the son of Pindar, and she was impregnated and she did not realize that”
DI:” What was it design to do and to symbolize?”
AW:” It’s part of symbolizing getting ready, getting the world ready to recognize the Horus that is about to come upon us.”

Then she talks about the year two thousand that was the year of Horus, Osiris reborn and this entail a sacrifice. The sacrifice is this mother and the child and it involves the child who lives as well.

DI:” What would have happened with Diana and the child with this sacrifice?”
AW: “ Diana left the tunnel dead, she didn’t leave that tunnel alive. That ritual….. she would have died in that tunnel and they had to take her soul in that tunnel and they had to take the soul or developing soul or essence of the unborn child and in the hospital it follows logically according to what I know about what they do that they would have taken the uterus and the fetus from Diana and as n ritual that would have been taken. And they would have removed other body parts.
DI:” And done what?”
AW:” Distributed them for high Illuminati members to consume - this is a ritual sacrifice.

Then she says that Diana’s family is tied into this, she has seen her brother and father at rituals, they did not shape shift but were involved.
Then they talk about how is would be possible with programmed people to cause this accident.

parel

02-07-2007, 03:04 AM

I haven't researched the topic of Diana's death, only read what I happened across out of interest. So, I just want to throw a couple of ideas in the ring:

# Diana didn't lose the title "Princess of Wales" after she divorced

# Diana wrote a letter to Paul Burrell claiming that her husband would have her killed in a car accident to make the way clear for him to marry.

# Mohamed al Fayed was married to Shakira Khashoggi, sister of Adnan Khashoggi -- international arms dealer.

# Diana was campaigning against land mines at the time of her death.

# William was microchipped as a small child.

ngawaka19

02-07-2007, 04:17 AM

# William was microchipped as a small child.

[/QUOTE]

How do you know William was microchipped? Or is that just a suggestion?

And mk72 I gotta run again, but have printed out your korero (words) and will read them soon a I get a break, I love you guys. thanks

cheeb

02-07-2007, 04:41 AM

How do you know William was microchipped? Or is that just a suggestion?

And mk72 I gotta run again, but have printed out your korero (words) and will read them soon a I get a break, I love you guys. thanks[/QUOTE]

ngawaka- i just put something about Princess Di on the general forum
under the title of
The beautification of the queen of hearts
if you are interested?

ngawaka19

02-07-2007, 05:06 AM

chur thanks, was in a hurry to do 10,000 things again, but im so late as this is too interesting and important for me to run off to do the mundaine. ho hum, how sad never mind. the world can wait till I finished talking to the whanau (family) of d i.

parel

02-07-2007, 06:31 AM

How do you know William was microchipped? Or is that just a suggestion?

And mk72 I gotta run again, but have printed out your korero (words) and will read them soon a I get a break, I love you guys. thanks

"The Washington Post reported in in May 1995 that Prince William of Great
Britain was implanted at the age of 12. Thus, if he were ever
kidnapped, a radiowave with a specific frequency could be targeted to
his microchip. The chip’s signal would be routed through a satellite to
the computer screen of police headquarters, where the Prince’s movements
could be followed. He could actually be located anywhere on the globe."

http://www.raven1.net/kilde2.htm

I remember reading about it long before I ever got into NWO and conspiracy theory. I thought "what a great idea!! He will always be safe."

klinker

02-07-2007, 11:52 AM

ngawaka19

02-07-2007, 12:34 PM

klinker

02-07-2007, 12:42 PM

jeffangel is that what your instincts tell you or do you have proof charles is not the biological father of Harry. Its hard to ask that question, I don't know why?

I wonder if its a talked about subject nearer the royals community, or whether like me, they find it a difficult topic. I believe this is what secrets and lies gets you. Toxic bullshit. Its so much better for the truth to be aired and out, so the people involved can become liberated. The esteem of the situation becomes respectful to all, when the truth prevails. Thats just what my little ole mind thinks anyway. I know that its unusual for me to think of Princess Diana at the best of times, but ever since her death, she often pops into my day, and I think of her beauty, her love affair with life, her compassion, and her boys. She was one of our hero's i think, yes, for me she was a hero. She died still believing in her truths, she was not going to be moved in her convictions, at least not by the royal family any way.

Harry looks like Hewitt. It's a freak of nature if he is not Hewitts boy and there is no way that truth will ever out. Maybe we are wrong about it and it makes no difference to us anyway.

I'm interested to know why Charles wanted a girl and was pissed when Harry popped out. I can only guess that with a girl the bloodline could be continued by marrying her into another family within the European black nobility who apparently are still running the show. Who knows.

Diana was light of that there is no doubt. A very special human being.

indigo

02-07-2007, 12:52 PM

I too have noticed how William looks much less like his Mother and more like his Father a Windsor. My partner commented yesterday that he used to be such a beautiful young man but now sadly looks like his Father.

There is also no doubt in my mind that Charles is not the biological Father of Harry.Who's son would you say he is? (just seen your edit). I don't think Harry looks anything like Hewit to be honest. I actually think Harry looks much more like the windsors, than the Spencers. Infact I think he looks like Prince Phillip.........:eek:

After watching the Diana tribute yesterday, Harry did seem the much more confident out of the two, where as William seemed alot shyer like his mum. Harry is much more ruthless, therefore making a better King in their eyes. Anyway I don't think William looks anything like the Windsors atall, he actually looks alot like Dianas brother Charles.

ngawaka19

02-07-2007, 01:08 PM

Who's son would you say he is? (just seen your edit). I don't think Harry looks anything like Hewit to be honest. I actually think Harry looks much more like the windsors, than the Spencers. Infact I think he looks like Prince Phillip.........:eek:

After watching the Diana tribute yesterday, Harry did seem the much more confident out of the two, where as William seemed alot shyer like his mum. Harry is much more ruthless, therefore making a better King in their eyes. Anyway I don't think William looks anything like the Windsors atall, he actually looks alot like Dianas brother Charles.

Chur, interesting. I'll have to take another look, I never thought of Prince Phillip, omg, thats abit of a shock, harry like the Winsor's.

I'm sure the truth will come out. It has too.

klinker

02-07-2007, 01:12 PM

Who's son would you say he is? (just seen your edit). I don't think Harry looks anything like Hewit to be honest. I actually think Harry looks much more like the windsors, than the Spencers. Infact I think he looks like Prince Phillip.........:eek:

William is now looking very much like a Windsor and not a Spencer. Harry? Who knows for sure but pictures tell a story and I don't see where Harry looks like a Windsor. Who was it that said when you look at any royal off spring that someone knew someone on the royal family? :)

mk72

04-07-2007, 08:38 PM

Saturn you are so f......g right.

I can't believe you pegged William not looking himself and losing his looks, just the other day I saw a recent photo of him and I thought he looked odd, so took a closer look, it seemed his face was drooping on one side, or one of his eyes has started to droop, ok, maybe he sleep on that side and it hadn't bounced back, but I wondered and never thought too much about it, till reading your post.

I think because the world has watched these two boys grow up and have grieved with them and for them, its hard not to feel concern. I have two sons 16 and 15 and they are very close to their fathers and I (one of my sons biological mum died when he was 6) so I know first hand what the death of mother can do to a child.

I am like you saturn, I can't help but feel these 2 boys unwittingly have been lead down a path of denial. They are controlled by and enslaved to the crown. Maybe its the denial that is destroying the soul of William, and the helplessness and inability of want of the truth that has made him start to subconsciously break down. I do think often of them and mention them in my prayers, as I do the rest of the living and breathing.

And we can only but stand and watch as the evils of that false castle encompasses them. I have a feeling Harry the pot smoking natzi uniform wearing aborigine artist is going to be just the rebel in disguise we need. He's not silly that boy, he's strong & cheeky, I think hes gonna be trickier than Wills, he will be the one to turn it around, and possibly in a way which none of us expect. That's hopefully if we make it past 2012. According to the Mayans, the most accurate time keepers to ever exist, we don't. And I'd like to think they spoke in metaphoric terms. Oh well its chilly here, cuppa and slippers, and abit of meditation to ponder on how much I love my family and this beautiful gift called life.
Thanks so much for your feed back everyone. Though it may not seem the most important of topics, I have enjoyed talking about Di, Will and Harry and saying out loud for the universe to hear that they are loved and Diana was special and very missed.

love and light
ngawaka19

Hi

Ngawaka - I found the David Icke interview with Arizona Wilder video on google totally by chance. You can watch it here it is very good.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1289338414420676723

I’ve also noticed William’s one side of his face drooping around the eye – thought it was just me –because it’s only a slight droop. I think it was the left side, but am not sure. What is it with al these droopy eyes ? Isn’t Gordon Brown’s one eye also drooped – apparently he lost it in a rugby accident.

Fire/burning torture is used in the porcelain face programming. The
charismatic branch of the satanic Network (such as the Assembly of
God churches) uses porcelain face programming. This is done by
using wax masks upon the victim, and giving them fire torture. The
person actually thinks that their face has melted. At that point, the
programmer pretends to be a god & a hero, and tells the person he
will give them a new face, a porcelain mask. These new faces by
the way, look like the ones sold in so many stores. The memories of
abuse are then hypnotically hid behind the masks. To take off the
masks is to abreact & burn again. If anyone touches the faces of
alters with porcelain face programming, the alters will feel a
burning sensation because their masks are not to be tampered with.
This means that these alters have via torture & hypnosis lost their
own faces! This is part of the dehumanization process which
chapter 10 part C talks about.
As long as these alters stay in denial of what has happened to them,
they do not have to face the burn torture memories. Some alters are
tortured in a fashion that the eye area is traumatized and they squint
the left eye. They look like Baron Guy de Rothschild of France’s
left eye looks.

Guy de Rothschild
Guy de Rothschild is a major handler/programmer, but the reason
for his drooping eye is not known. Perhaps it was torture.

ngawaka19

05-07-2007, 05:15 AM

You little beauty....xxxxxxxhug hug hug.....xxxxxx

won't read it now on the run

will later

love you
ngawaka

2013

07-07-2007, 01:34 PM

Having looked at a few recent pictures i think harry looks more like charles now , william does resemble the spencers more but is changing .A few years back there was a tv documentary about the royals and it had photos of a young prince phillip , he looked the image of william now , one of the women on the prog said phillip when young wasa handsome fellow, lol hard to imagine until you saw the photo , cant find any pics online though.

another thing about princess diana -
"“Diana was a ritual sacrifice because she’s named after the goddess Diana, she was chosen from before birth for the purpose which she served." im sure she was used to provide children then they got rid of her , you could say Dispensed with lady Di Spencer :D their own personal dispenser of children !

limelady

07-07-2007, 01:47 PM

lottie

07-07-2007, 02:49 PM

without a doubt- harry is hewitts son, ive heard many say that to me but havnt seen a pic of the two- its perfectly obvious isnt it?!! prehaps they should go on Jeremy Kyle and get a DNA test!! lol!!!

2013- di-spencer- dispenser- hilarious!! :D well done- good pun!!! :cool:

2013

07-07-2007, 10:53 PM

i was painting this afternoon walls not art its one of my most contemplative times next to washing dishes or sat on the loo try doing all 3 at once:D and i thought lottie would reply to my di spencer post , so nice one lottie how are you girl .And hey lime my fave colour at the mo you picked the most unlike prince charles looking pic and harry looks like a young grant mitchell in the pic next to it lol (eastenders uk soap in case you dont know ) isuppose any pics from different angles can be seen to resemble anything we choose to see really , i always thought harry and william belonged to other people way back when di was a party girl attending all the wham gigs etc but cant pin one of them on george micheal though can we lol , but i have thought harry looking more like charlie lately .
Then again prince harry is a virgo and in my experience virgo's being mercurial always seem to morph into lots of other people , well the ones i know do , never seen them turn lizard though .:D

mk72

09-07-2007, 02:24 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2584448896970506255&q=ARIZONA+WILDER&total=54&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Also found this video - it's very good.

synergy777

09-07-2007, 04:18 PM

she was more royal than the windsors/saxe, she came from sinclair line. they killed her dur to her love of an arab/child, the next kings mother would have given him a muslim sister/brother, they didn't want that. for mohammed to say the things he does about coverups/hits, in his postion, he doesn't say them without consideration.

ngawaka19

09-07-2007, 04:29 PM

that is good enuf reason for the dark ones to want illimination.

but this raises the question:

why would Mohammad Al Fayed be involved with this? do you beilieve he was?
interested to know.

synergy777

09-07-2007, 08:38 PM

even mohammed has stated they were engaged, she was pregnant, that monarchy didn't want half sister/brother of the future king being an muslim/arab. he is very successful man, clever, he owns the best shop in the country, harrods and fulham football club. do you think he would talk like this withoput convition, courage. heck some people if they knew this no matter how powerful they were, would just suffer in silence, like diana's wimpy brother. but mohammed got the fire, he speaks his mind. after they have killed your child, grandchild, and future daughter in law, then whats life anyway, he isn't scared thats why he speaks. if someone kills your child, then theres no room for being a subservient coward. but the people/media of this country deep down are scared, and not free. they are scared of the elite, royalty, police, but dare not speak out for fear of punishment.

i think their materialistic culture, gives them no spirutal foundation, no connection, so they cling onto life as its the only thing they know. they would rather do wrong and survive than fight, stand up for good. they lack connection, faith, trust for the soul/creator, and hence seek acceptance from the powers that be. thankfully there are those who are changing, connecting. also the patriotic spirit in this country merely manifests itself as footy shirts, flags and face paint. anything serious, eg politics, eu, they just ignore. at least americans have balls, guns to stand up for themselves.

the stiff uppper lip has been replaced with closed lips. i blame tavistock myself, they did a number and did it well, so well most don't even know.i am thankful for my asian culture that it keep me balanced, you to get see positive/negative points of all cultures, both asian and english. so you take the best points of each, correct the negatives of each and become complete. see i haven't a chip on my shoulder, i have them on both, lol

2013

09-07-2007, 09:29 PM

http://www.dianaqueenofheaven.com/diana.html
the site had been the place where the Merovingian Kings of Europe came to fight to the death to settle disputes. They came to Pont de L'Alma, because they knew that the one who was killed there, went directly to the Throne of Heaven, and would oversee and direct what the victor would do on earth. In other words, the one who was killed, became the winner.
interesting idea concept read the whole article :D

anoninnyc

09-07-2007, 10:03 PM

synergy777

10-07-2007, 05:25 PM

its no different to jfk, with regards to elite involvement and establishment/media cover up.

synergy777

10-07-2007, 05:36 PM

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/your-money/manage-your-finances/2007/07/09/admire-aspire-acquire-no-thanks.aspx?site=UKFool

Admire, Aspire, Acquire? No Thanks!

By Cliff D'Arcy | 9 July 2007
|
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

From Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles MacKay (1812 to 1889)

Recently, while watching Andrew Marr's excellent A History of Modern Britain on BBC2, I let out a howl when I caught sight of a banner as the camera panned along a city centre. This flag, on the Victoria Quarter Arcade in Leeds, read: Admire, Aspire, Acquire.

Of all the dreadful straplines encouraging us to lust after consumer goods, this is perhaps the worst that I've ever seen. Do people really believe this drivel -- that 'retail therapy' will make them feel better about themselves? Have we become such slaves to conspicuous consumption that only more and newer consumer goods will fill the empty spaces inside us?

One consequence of our 'urge to splurge' is that many retailers and other organisations aim to cash in our unwillingness to curb our spending and live within our means. As a result, some firms refer to the UK as 'Treasure Island' and enrich their shareholders by taking advantage of hard-pressed consumers. This is particularly the case for captive audiences, as I warned in Ten Infuriating Swindles!

So, how bad is our overspending habit? One estimate is that, as a nation, we spend £110 for every £100 in our pay packets. In other words, we spend a tenth (10%) more than we earn, which forces us to do two things: dip into our savings, and dig ourselves ever deeper into debt. Indeed, we Brits now save only £1 of every £50 of take-home pay.

Obviously, if we constantly bust our household budgets, then we're going to build up bigger debts. Indeed, when Labour came to power in May 1997, British borrowers had £84 billion of unsecured debt (including credit and store cards, car and personal loans, overdrafts and so on). Ten years later and this figure now stands at £214 billion, according to the Bank of England.

This helps to explain why one group is doing very nicely out of our compulsion to spend: banks, building societies and other lenders, whose profits have rocketed as personal debt levels have soared.

So, it's pretty clear that a good deal of Britain's material affluence is an illusion, fuelled by credit and supported by our 'live now, pay later' mindset. Scratch the surface and you discover the casualties of our rampant materialism and financial mismanagement, such as the 30,000 people in England & Wales who became bankrupt or insolvent in the first three months of this year. Can the UK really be in good financial health when 10,000 people become insolvent or bankrupt each month -- an all-time record?

What's more, things are set to get worse before they get better, thanks to rising taxes, falling disposable incomes, and higher interest bills as the Bank of England hikes its base rate. Thus, Britain's worshoppers (those who worship shopping) face tough times in the months to come!

The big question is: what can you do to avoid the problems which go hand in hand with overspending? The simple answer is to break free of the herd, be an individual, and do your own thing. This may involve:

Avoiding shopping sprees and the temptation to spend.Being wary of objects of desire -- look, touch, but don't buy!Not being swayed by marketing or advertising.Recognising that, on the whole, designer labels and trendy brands are ploys conjured up by design agencies to make us part with more cash in the hope of appearing 'cool'.Understanding that consumer luxuries are just that -- luxuries, not something that you treat yourself to each week.Spending for spending's sake is just plain silly. What are you: a child in a sweet shop, lacking in any self-control?You may end up owning a huge number of things, but when is enough enough?If you merely want something, then you can't have it. Instead, you should be firm with yourself and say, "I can have this only if I really need it!"Realise that shopping addiction has similarities to other emotional problems, such as eating disorders, drug and alcohol misuse, and depression. Buying new things may raise your mood, but this feeling is fleeting and will leave you worse off in the long run.Don't even attempt to keep up with the Joneses. Instead, tell them to take a hike! Take to heart the title of one of my favourite books, What Do You Care What Other People Think?In my view, which I set out in Does Wealth Make Us Worse?, our national obsession with money, possessions, physical and social appearances, and 'celebrity culture' does serious damage to our personal finances, mental and physical well-being and national identity. Therefore, if I were to offer an antidote to the title of this piece, it would be the following: Inspect, Reflect, Reject!

By the way, I apologise if this article comes across as a bit of 'holier than thou' cod-philosophy. Of course, I wouldn't ask you to do anything that I wouldn't do myself. Hence, for the whole of this month, I'm embarking on yet another bout of 'extreme budgeting'.

As I explained in How I Lived On 10p A Day, this is an exercise in which I try to avoid spending any money for an entire month. In order to do this, I'm forced to go without all of my vices, such as alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, snacks and so on. Thus, I'm undergoing a complete financial and physical detox at present, which is testing my willpower to its limits!

Finally, if you would like to improve your self-image and status, don't buy designer gear or sleek, silver gadgets. Instead, do something altruistic, such as giving blood, which doesn't cost a penny but leaves you feeling better inside -- which is more than you can say for spending tomorrow's money today

shopping malls are the new cathedrals, its a social engineering/economic angle. to deny the spiritual aspect to a people, is cut them off, so they look for something to fill the void. a tree without roots cannot grow.

as oscar wilde said, "people know the price of everything and the value of nothing", well my edited version, lol

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/oscar_wilde.html

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.
Oscar Wilde

A man's face is his autobiography. A woman's face is her work of fiction.
Oscar Wilde , the lies of make up, and the dreaded removal of beer goggles/morning after, lol

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde

synergy777

10-07-2007, 07:19 PM

DIANA: FIAT DRIVER 'SHOT IN THE HEAD'

Monday July 9,2007
By Martin Evans
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12839/...n-the-head'

THE paparazzi photographer at the centre of investigations into Princess Diana’s death died with two bullet holes in his head, it is claimed.

James Andanson, who followed the Princess’s every move in the week before her death, was thought to have committed suicide when his burnt corpse was found in the wreckage of a car in the French countryside.

But now the fireman who discovered the body, Christophe Pelat, has said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice.”

The revelation threatens to blow apart the inquest on Diana, which will have another preliminary hearing today in the London High Court.

Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi, 42, died with Diana in a Paris crash, is now demanding that Mr Pelat be called to give evidence at the inquest – or at least that his account is heard.

Andanson, 54, has been one of the key figures in the mystery surrounding the fatal crash, which happened 10 years ago next month.

As a leading paparazzi photographer, he had spent weeks following the 36-year-old Princess, as her romance with Dodi blossomed .

Many who have studied the accident closely believe it was Andanson who was driving a white Fiat Uno which clipped Diana’s Mercedes seconds before the crash, as part of a complicated assassination plot.

Police are certain that Andanson, a millionaire, was a regular informer for both MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, and French agencies. But he was never properly interviewed by the authorities, and less than three years after the tragedy, he was also found dead. His body, found in thick woodland near Montpellier, was so badly charred that it took police nearly a month before DNA and dental records confirmed his identity.

The official verdict was suicide. Now Mr Pelat, the first fire officer on the scene, has suggested he may have been murdered. His claim supports conspiracy theories that Andanson was himself assassinated by secret agents because he knew too much about the plot which killed Diana.

Asked by the Daily Express this week to expand on his extraordinary story, Mr Pelat, who still works as a fireman, said: “It is not my job to say any more to anybody except the official authorities.

“I deal with emergencies every day of the week and treat each one with equal importance.”

But he is believed to have given a TV interview in which he said he saw the bullet holes in Andanson’s head.

Mr Al Fayed now wants that evidence to be aired at the full inquests into Diana and Dodi’s deaths, later this year.

He is among those who believe that Diana and Dodi were murdered by the British security services because senior British royals, including Prince Philip, did not want Diana having a Muslim baby by Dodi.

And he is convinced that some of the paparazzi, including the driver of the white Fiat Uno, were MI6 agents whose mission was to stop the announcement of the couple’s engagement – and Diana’s pregnancy. Mr Pelat’s evidence could be vital in supporting these theories.

Andanson had been in Sardinia during the last week of August 1997, as Diana and Dodi enjoyed their last holiday together in the Mediter-ranean, and then returned to France on August 30.

Less than six hours after the fatal crash in Paris, and for reasons that have never been revealed, Andanson boarded a flight at Paris’s Orly airport, bound for Corsica.

He claimed he had been nowhere near the centre of the French capital when the crash happened, but could not provide any real evidence.

His son James and daughter Kimberly first told police that they thought their father was grape-harvesting in the Bordeaux region.

Then Andanson’s wife, Elizabeth, claimed she had been at home with her husband all night, at Le Manoir de la Bergerie, in Cher, until he abruptly left for Orly, at 3.45 am, to catch the dawn flight to Corsica.

Pressed by the Daily Express in an earlier interview, Mrs Andanson said her husband was “constantly on the run” and she might have been mistaken. She said: “It was always very difficult to recall James’s precise movements because he was always coming and going.”

Asked about the claim of bullet holes in her husband’s head, Mrs Andanson merely said: “We shall see.”

What makes Andanson’s precise movements on the night of the crash so vital is that he was in a white Fiat Uno.

The car was repainted shortly after the Alma tunnel crash, and was sold by Andanson in October 1997. And although the official French report on the crash concluded that Andanson’s car was not involved, forensic reports made available to the Daily Express told a very different story.

One said that paint scratches from the Fiat, found on the side-view mirror and bumper of the Mercedes, were identical to samples from the matching spot on Andanson’s Fiat. Police are now expected to reopen the investigation into Andanson’s death.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, the fourth official chosen to run the inquests on Diana and Dodi, has said he wants full disclosure of all evidence. Some French witnesses will appear by video link from Paris.

French and British investigators concluded that the crash happened because the couple’s chauffeur, Henri Paul, was drunk and affected by anti-depressant drugs.

Despite exhaustive investigations by the authorities on both sides of the Channel, many believe that crucial evidence, including what really happened to Andanson and what part he played in Diana’s death, has been overlooked.

thanks to 2tuff/unhived mind

http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=28649&hl=

2013

10-07-2007, 07:36 PM

looks interesting the plot thickens .Would bullet holes be identifiable as such on a badly burnt body ? how would they differ from a normal corpse , having never seen a badly burnt corpse nor 1 with bullet holes in , bullet holes on a normal corpse are easy to see , would we recognise such if we saw them was the fireman an ex military man to know bullet holes when he saw them .Im not disputing any of this just got to question things more so if you are going down those lines to make sure of your evidence .All well suss considering the fiat and supposed suicide .A millionaire succesful career they are not reason alone why you wouldnt kill yourself but still a few less problems than most people . has anyoneany info from the family as to his mental emotional state and any history of depression etc , or is htisanother of those out of the blue suicides . Yuo would have to be seriously pissed off to set your car on fire with yourself inside bullets in the head or not .:(

synergy777

10-07-2007, 07:54 PM

how did he fire the second shot? one would think one shot in a suicide attempt would be sufficent enough to ends one life. also dr kelly was less of a threat they disposed of him.

2013

10-07-2007, 10:23 PM

yeh i thought of the kelly case when i read that and also how or why would you set car on fire if youhad shot yourself in the head once or twice .I know i can be incompetent at times but asking us to believe that is stretching it quiet a bit .If they admit the gunshot wounds at all that is :D

synergy777

11-07-2007, 07:22 PM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6837

Diana’s Fear of Murder

Richard Palmer – Daily Express July 10, 2007

A letter in which Princess Diana claimed Prince Charles wanted her killed will be presented in evidence in full for the first time at her inquest.

In the ten-page document she chillingly reveals her growing fears for her life, saying: “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car.”

She also claims the heir to the throne wanted her dead so that he would be free to marry Camilla. Extra pages of the letter, which have never been made public, were found by lawyers investigating her death.

The full hand-written letter had originally been presented as just one sheet of paper but it is actually ten sides long and covers five sheets. A preliminary hearing at the High Court in London yesterday was told that Scotland Yard detectives investigating the death have given conflicting accounts of how much of it they have seen.

Now a fuller version of her own words will be heard at the inquest, which starts on October 2. However, it is not clear whether the jury will be able to see the entire document.

The letter was written 10 months before Diana died in a 1997 Paris car smash with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed. Her former butler Paul Burrell said she gave it to him as insurance.

In the brief excerpt that has been released to the public, she writes: “This particular phase of my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the
path clear for him to marry.”

However, Operation Paget – the £3.69million Scotland Yard inquiry which concluded that Diana died in an accident – dismissed the letter, saying it found no evidence to support her concerns.

But Michael Mansfield, QC, for Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed, told the hearing yesterday: “The Paget report never does indicate it saw the original, and there are differing police recollections as to whether they did so.” He asked for tests to find indentations that might reveal the existence of a still-concealed top page containing a date and the name of the intended recipient.

The development came as the coroner overseeing the inquest rejected calls for the Queen and Prince Philip to be questioned as witnesses. Lord Justice Scott Baker’s decision infuriated lawyers trying to investigate claims that Diana was murdered.

He insisted it was neither appropriate nor necessary to ask Philip about letters he is said to have written to the Princess and to question the monarch about a warning that she is alleged to have given Mr Burrell about “dark forces” at work.

The refusal came despite claims by Mr Al Fayed that the couple were murdered in an MI5 plot masterminded by the Duke of Edinburgh because Diana was pregnant with Dodi’s child.

Philip refused to cooperate with the Scotland Yard inquiry led by ex-Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens, insisting he had nothing useful to add.

Mr Mansfield urged the coroner to help uncover the truth about Philip’s letters, which were said to have upset Diana.

“You may be able to approach him on behalf of the inquest and inquire into truth,” he said. “Obvious inquiries are, firstly, whether he was aware of any of the fears she has expressed and, two, whether he did send letters of the kind described in the Paget report.”

But Lord Justice Scott Baker said: “It doesn’t seem to me that any further inquiries at this stage would be appropriate or necessary.” But he said he would “keep the position under review”.

Last night Mr Al Fayed vowed to press ahead with efforts to obtain evidence from the Royal Family, which he says will support his murder claims.

“The coroner may believe it is not appropriate nor necessary but we believe it is,” said a spokesman for the Harrods tycoon. “At some point we’re going to have to have answers. We’re not going to let this drop.”

Another mystery surrounding the case has also been the allegation that a white Fiat Uno caused Diana’s chauffeur-driven Mercedes to veer out of control.

There have been claims that it belonged to James Andanson, a photographer who was later found dead.

His burnt corpse was found in the wreckage of a car in France in what appeared to be suicide.

However, a witness has now come forward to say he believes that Andanson had two bullet holes in his head.

Mr Mansfield also claimed there was a witness, Jacques Morrell, who saw Mr Andanson in Paris on the night of the crash. He said: “There are witnesses who indicate he was in Paris. Whether he was driving a white Fiat Uno is a separate matter.

“Part of (Morrell’s) identification of Andanson comes from something that is referred to as confidential reports.”

He said it was not clear what these confidential reports were, and urged the court to request the information from investigators.

The hearing was also told that a marquee will be set up in the courtyard of the High Court to accommodate hundreds of journalists and members of the public who will want to see the full inquest.

The next preliminary hearing will be held on July 27.
www.dailyexpress.co.uk/news/view/12978/Diana's-fear-of-murder

so diana knew, mohammed knows. the fiat driver, killed himself, by shooting himself twice, then burnt his car and himself.

nickatnoon61

21-07-2007, 02:20 PM

Yes mk72,to become rich and famous, there is a price to be paid. Even if it is your son, or daughter! Nick.

infinitetruth

21-07-2007, 03:19 PM

ngawaka19

23-07-2007, 01:04 AM

she was more royal than the windsors/saxe, she came from sinclair line. they killed her due to her love of an Arab/child, the next kings mother would have given him a Muslim sister/brother, they didn't want that. for mohammed to say the things he does about coverups/hits, in his postion, he doesn't say them without consideration.

Hey synergy777, you know, I always thought this until I heard D I say on his Road to Freedom doco that Tony Blair, the queen, Mohammad Al Fayed, according to a friend of his, namely Arizona Wilder, were all together in a satanic ritual (hard to believe) together and apparently are somehow able to trail back to the same blood line????? Which would tell me that the assassination of Diana was part of a sacrificial ritual, repeated in present time of the ancient killing of the Goddess Diana. All of this is news to me, so i'm still trying to get my head round it. I was always convinced that she was taken because she was pregnant not just with a brown baby, but an Arab baby, and had let slip echos of marriage to Dodi Always thought the irony would of been too much for the Queen.

ngawaka19

23-07-2007, 01:13 AM

ngawaka19

23-07-2007, 01:43 AM

http://www.billmckelvie.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HarryHewitt.jpg

Some say Harry looks more like Charles now he is older.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9572/screenhunter050yu9.jpg

I disagree.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/2499/lovelimeoa6.jpg

Hey lime howzit goin sista,

omg it is totally in the nose, harry's nose is a replica of charles's. But I thought neila's upshot was bizarrely precise, she/he thinks harry looks like Prince Phillip totally woow..........and William looks like Diana's brother Charles...

Go Diana, she was such a rebel in disguise. She is still to me one of the esteemed and respected of this earth.

And thanks for that info parel, the fact that William was microchipped when he was 12 is 'out of control'. This means, if its true, that 'they' can control him. Not fair, thats cheating. And how tragic, but still knowing that this is kinda their way of safe guarding his welfare. A catch 22. But this raises the question...........why wasn't Harry microchipped???????

thanks for the link mk72, I noticed shortly into this speech she begins to waver, seeming to be indecisive. Maybe just me, but I don't find Arizona credible. She was supposedly chosen by the Illuminati when she was a child because she had the ability to move objects and was seen as a power centre point stylus of sorts, which is why they brainwashed her. Now has she proven that she can do these things? Would be interesting to know whether she has demonstrated her credibility to D I. ??

synergy777, am still reading your posts. thank you for your time input to this thread.

awesome you guys
love and peace energy to you all
from my centre, to you
arohatinonui
ngawaka19

synergy777

23-07-2007, 02:57 PM

i didn't know he was chipped, maybe it was a security measure, in case he got kidnapped etc. as for the enquiry, they about to start another new one. it could bring down the house of windsor. maybe rothschild/murdoch will spill the beans when they see fit.

ngawaka19

25-07-2007, 06:49 AM

[QUOTE=synergy777;73867]DIANA: FIAT DRIVER 'SHOT IN THE HEAD'

Monday July 9,2007
By Martin Evans
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12839/...n-the-head'

THE paparazzi photographer at the centre of investigations into Princess Diana’s death died with two bullet holes in his head, it is claimed.

James Andanson, who followed the Princess’s every move in the week before her death, was thought to have committed suicide when his burnt corpse was found in the wreckage of a car in the French countryside...............

Far out. Thanks for your time and input synergy777. Wicked mon. That was intense. Your intense. Awesome. My queries are gone. So its true, Mohammad Al Fayed is deadly serious about this inquest. Wicked. Finally.
Thoughts:

- Imagine this.......Charles and the duke subpoenaed to give evidence as defendants......in an ideal world wouldn't that be a sight. But this is Babylon and whats the chances of that happening?...............zilch.

- the pressure for William and Harry within the palace presently, as the 27th draws near must be incredible for them. I imagine, the civil war each of these boys has going on inside themselves is endless, wanting to believe that, father and grandfather had nothing to do with this, but being constantly hounded by the nagging possibility that they were the orchestra tors. And if the unthinkable were to be true, what then, what happens for them then? The confusion.?! Having the constant frustration of not knowing, and with each piece of new information that reaches them, the anger and grief, the missing her, wooh man we have no idea what they must be going thru. The dead can't rest in peace and the living can't move on. And of course the lies and deceit they must be getting fed from within the circle. You just shake your head. All one can do is send blessings of hope for and a swift process so the boys can move on.

Great information synergy, thanks again....

sending love energy from centre point out in all directions.........
need a moment

love and light all
ngawaka19

synergy777

25-07-2007, 03:23 PM

ngawaka19

28-07-2007, 09:39 AM

ngawaka, no prob bro. i think it must be hard for the princes knowing this stuff is outthere and the case still unsolved. there are too many problems associated with case, eg why take over 45 mins to get to the hospital, someone of her status would have the best treatment. why conflicting reports about the fiat, paparazzi,the dead journalists. i think they(rothschild/murdoch) will bring the truth out when they want to rid the country of the monarchy and have full control of the state, which is now a member state. the elite don't care for proxy royalty, presidents, as they have the money, power. the rothschilds chose the saxe coburg gotha's anyway, informed people like ian hislop on a bbc show "have i got news for you", plainly stated the german name on tv.

the funny thing is that the english have been taught to hate the germans, but come from them and have a german queen, thats irony. its divide and rule, cut people off from there roots.this is why english people have lost their identity, they are the frontline in social programming by the nwo/tavistock, americans are less engineered, due to their large numbers. if you look at the mix of races that contribute to make the english, its awesome, they are from a variety of nations.they should be proud to have roman, pict, jute, saxon, french, danish, dutch, celtic heritage. its this mix, thats makes them what they are, fundamentally good people, strong willed, brave. they are just easily led, trust too much,their loyalty is misused by the elite.

Hey synergy777, tu meke
this is such a profound post. it hits close to me as my country was colonised by the brits and one of the over throwing tactics used was to debase the Maori of their spirituality and culture (never worked). brits are notorious for this thru out the world. take a peoples culture and spirituality from them by separating them to name one way, aggressively replace it with suggestion of your own and wala you have a squat to inhabit.

I was thinking about the deliberations on fri with the inquest trial of Diana's death and found this in the paper.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/14817/Stevens+faces+Diana+driver+quiz

Why to they keep focusing on the driver being drunk. Its so obvious, the ole decoy trick. we ain't dumb, and the judge saying he's not sweeping it under the carpet is another illusion, obviously spending more time on the driver means spending no time on where the truth lies. Lets hope they start to focus on the driver of the fiat being shot and the fireman that found him, this seems to me to have more substance and could lead to the truth faster than signing it off with a drunken driver.

However they could be focusing on this as a way to kibosh the drunk driver, meaning there was another cause for the accident.

Whatever this is a very interesting case to watch, to see how the feds behave, and watch them stand strong for justice, or die in the hole of evil.

love and light
ngawaka19

omshanti

28-07-2007, 10:30 AM

Hello...

In response to Charles wanting a girl (when Di pregnant with Harry)..given that illuminati marriages are arranged for genetic purposes, is it more desirous to have a girl rather than a boy (for continuation of bloodline through the maternal side)?

Do you think it curious that both Clinton and Bush illuminati couples had daughters?
Can someone shed some light here?

synergy777

28-07-2007, 07:51 PM

in genetics the maternal line is the most valued, thats why the elite look for suitable "breeding" stock when they look at female partners, lok at teh jewish angle, you are only a "proper" jew if your mother is a jew. in the ancient days we had maternal cultures, the patriarchial culture, the subjugation of the woman is a recent one. women, its pains me to say it as a bloke, lol are the most important sex, as their reproductive nature, their nurturing of the child is the foundation of life. its just treating women like this, gives them a power trip, lol

the saying, women you can't live with them, and you can't live without them, lol painful but true, lol

heres some words about women, from jesus/yashuah/issa.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jesus+in+india&meta=
http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

At this time, an old woman approached the crowd, but was pushed back. Then Issa said, "Reverence Woman, mother of the universe,' in her lies the truth of creation. She is the foundation of all that is good and beautiful. She is the source of life and death. Upon her depends the existence of man, because she is the sustenance of his labors. She gives birth to you in travail, she watches over your growth. Bless her. Honor her. Defend her. Love your wives and honor them, because tomorrow they shall be mothers, and later-progenitors of a whole race. Their love ennobles man, soothes the embittered heart and tames the beast. Wife and mother-they are the adornments of the universe."

"As light divides itself from darkness, so does woman possess the gift to divide in man good intent from the thought of evil. Your best thoughts must belong to woman. Gather from them your moral strength, which you must possess to sustain your near ones. Do not humiliate her, for therein you will humiliate yourselves. And all which you will do to mother, to wife, to widow or to another woman in sorrow-that shall you also do for the Spirit."

still, it don't mean us men have to be submissive metro types, 50/50 like wiley said, lol

see how eastern test keep this, although on a low level, and the bible omits these views, and falsely blames eve for the fall. when it was eve according to the jewish haggadah that made man see the fallen for their real ugliness and see through their false angelic nature.

thats the last time i post this women stuff, shovel/grave, lol

synergy777

29-07-2007, 08:43 PM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6926

Stevens to be quizzed over Diana driver 'drunk' discrepancies
Daily Mail – July 27, 2007

Former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Stevens is to be quizzed for the Diana inquest over alleged "gross discrepancies" relating to whether the driver in the case was drunk.

Lawyers for Henri Paul's family called today for the ex-Scotland Yard chief, who headed the Operation Paget investigation into the crash, to become a witness.

At a preliminary hearing at the High Court, Richard Keen QC said that Lord Stevens told Mr Paul's parents in November 2006 that their son was not drunk at the time of the crash.

But that a month later, the Operation Paget report was published, concluding that Mr Paul was three times the legal French alcohol limit.

The chauffeur was said to have been drinking on the night that Diana and Dodi Fayed died in August 1997. He was also said to have been driving at high speed.

Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker confirmed that Lord Stevens would be asked at this stage about the matter prior to a decision being made about whether he would be a witness.

"I take your point about the discrepancy about what Stevens says and what Paget says and that will be looked in to and the results supplied in due course," he said.

He said: "It's always been in my mind that Lord Stevens is in the category of possible witness."

He added: "Lord Stevens will be asked about it at the first stage to draw his attention to it and find out what he has to say about it."

Lord Justice Scott Baker said it was too early discuss whether Lord Stevens would definitely be a witness, but added: "I'm not going to push this under the carpet."

Mr Keen QC told the court: "What we need to know is why is there such a gross discrepancy between what he was saying on the 8th November and between what was published on 14th December?"

"It's my submission that Lord Stevens should be required to give evidence as a witness at the inquest."

He ruled out that Lord Stevens had lied to Mr Paul's parents, but said that an alternative was that "between 8 November and the publication of the report the conclusion of the report was materially altered so as to attribute the cause of the crash to the gross drunkenness of Henri Paul".

Mr Keen described Mr Paul as "a convenient scapegoat".

Edmund Lawson QC, for the Metropolitan Police, said, after Mr Keen had called for Lord Stevens to be a witness: "I'm not going to rise to the bait thrown by Mr Keen in that extraordinary outburst.

"If Lord Stevens is required to assist, Lord Stevens will assist."

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471295&in_page_id=1770

synergy777

30-07-2007, 02:15 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471655&in_page_id=1770

Parents of Diana driver 'were told he wasn't drunk'
by TIM FINAN - More by this author »

Last updated at 21:23pm on 29th July 2007

The parents of Henri Paul (pictured) claimed that they were told that he was not drunk at the time of the accident. Paul, Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed (below) were all killed in the crash

The parents of Henri Paul, the chauffeur driving Princess Diana on the night she died, have spoken for the first time about fresh claims over whether he had been drunk.

They said Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police commissioner who investigated the 1997 Paris crash which killed Diana, Dodi Al Fayed and Mr Paul, had assured them he had not been drunk.

But a month later in his official report into the tragedy Lord Stevens said Mr Paul had been three times over the French drink-drive limit when his Mercedes crashed.

At a preliminary hearing of Diana's inquest in London on Friday, the Paul family's lawyer called for Lord Stevens to be asked to explain the "gross discrepancy".

There have been persistent reports since the crash that the accident was caused by Mr Paul's drunken driving at speed.

His father Jean, 76, told how he and his 75-year-old wife Gisele had met with Lord Stevens.

"He was very polite and understanding," he said. "It took place in Paris and there was an interpreter present.

"He said to us at one moment that he believed that Henri was not drunk. We told him we have known all along that he was not drunk.

"We told our British lawyer what he had said and then we heard that he [Stevens] had concluded that Henri was drunk. There is something not right here.

Speaking at his home in Lorient, Brittany, he added: "There was something in his manner which was sort of apologetic.

"The way he looked at us and the feeling we got was that his hands were tied. As though he regretted what he was having to do.

"He asked us about Henri and we told him that the stories about him being a drunk were all untrue."

Mr Paul said he was puzzled by why a third coroner had now been appointed to handle the inquest, expected to begin in October.

"Didn't the first two fit the bill?" he asked. "Is there one legal system for the Royal Family and another for the ordinary people?"

Mrs Paul said: "The pain and the grief will not go away until we learn the truth and the whole truth. We have felt very alone over the years.

"Diana's two boys live with grief too. Every day they think of their mother. Every day I think of my son."

Mr Paul added: "We are getting old. I'm 76 and my eyesight is failing. I don't know whether I'll live long enough to know the whole truth about the accident in Paris."

also tonight on ch5, 9.00pm there is a dodi/diana docudrama.

ngawaka19

31-07-2007, 04:21 PM

That truthseeker link was awesome, one to keep for the files, thanks synergy.

Have they stated why they are changing the coroner for the 3rd time? Like gladwrap isn't it, totally see thru.

Incredibly transparent for the feds to concentrate on the so called drunk driving of the chauffeur. When there are small leaks of the truth hitting the mainstream they must freak. What would seem to be a tightly screwed plan with no leaks, to them, is an opportunity for the stupidity of them to be exposed. And by something as unseen and small as an experienced fireman doing his everyday job. He has no agenda, he simply analyses the situation with the knowledge of his lifes work experience. The fireman that found the driver of the Fiat, burnt to death (supposedly), whom happened to notice that the deceased had 2 bullet holes in his head. He knows it was 2 bullet holes because of his emergency experience. He doesn't know nor does he care who the person is.

Why do they think that they are so untouchable? I find it so saticfying knowing that its always the small stuff that's overlooked by the orchestrators of these big crimes, that trips them up everytime. Its always the small details that slip thru the works. Now, all thats needed is some involved party that is genuine to grab this and run like the wind with it. The guy driving the Fiat........found burnt to death in a suicide???? Fireman says he was shot in head twice...........but he commited suicide...........suicide self burnings? How many have there been in the last 20 30 years............square peg, round hole...........hello..........

At first I was hoping they were focusing on John-Paul's alleged intoxication in order to eliminate him as a cause for the accident, enabling them to put full focus on the driver of the fiat. In an ideal world maybe, but not today. Lets see what the 2nd of Oct brings.

love and light
ngawaka19

ngawaka19

01-08-2007, 03:59 PM

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15228

I can't believe it, I think its actually gonna happen. They are pulling in the fireman who found the driver of the fiat.

Awesome. I pray the fireman stays safe. Oct 2 is when its all gonna happen. Wickard............this is great news. for me it means that maybe they don't have a grip so tightly on all of us.

synergy777

01-08-2007, 07:43 PM

ngawaka19

03-08-2007, 04:19 PM

imagine if dodi and diana got married, had kids, this would have been brilliant for race relations. they could have helped with all this middle east stuff, palestine, the iraqi war etc, islamophobia. they would have been the people of the worlds royalty.

i love mo, he don't take no shit, speaks it straight, god bless mo.

Do you believe what D I say's in his doco 'freedom road', that Mo was involved with the illuminati, and was at one of the satanic ritual's at 'bo' grove'? I want to understand, what happened, and I get confused alot about this situation. I am glad for him being hell bent, and forthright and outspoken, he loved his son no doubt. He is the key, i believe. But I would really like to know more about his involvement, just surrounding his relationship with the mason clan.

I just bought the latest reading on Diana's last days, seeing the Princess and Dodi together and in love, what a fantastic vision it is. She didn't care, she let the world know that we must love who we love and not conform to some ridiculous exclusive ideology, that may have a tight stigmatic grip around all of our throats. She led the way, she broke royal ground. I would of loved seeing her and Dodi have children, your right it would of helped the world draw closer together, and would of allowed a safe and welcoming window into Islam for the Western world, instead of the controlled propaganda contamination we are rationed.

thanks synergy
love and light
ngawaka

synergy777

04-08-2007, 06:49 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=473066&in_page_id=1879&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5

What if Princess Diana had lived?
By TOM CAIN - More by this author »

Last updated at 23:52pm on 3rd August 2007

This month, it will be ten years since the crash that killed Princess Diana. Since then, millions of words have been written about that fatal accident.

Yet one haunting fact remains. If Diana had been wearing her seatbelt that night, it is probable she would still be alive today.

Here Tom Cain, the author of a new thriller inspired by the crash, imagines how the Princess's life might have unfolded had she survived...

She still has nightmares about the crash. She can hear the angry buzz of the photographers' motorbikes and the note of near-hysteria in Dodi Fayed's voice as he urges the chauffeur to drive faster.

She can see the central pillars of the Alma Tunnel flashing past her window and the back of the little white Fiat, glimpsed through the windscreen, as the massive black Mercedes rushes towards it, as unstoppable as an avalanche.

It's the helplessness that grips her in her dreams. Time slows down as the gap between the two cars closes: 100 yards, 50, 20, until finally the two cars collide, the Mercedes loses its grip on the road and absolute darkness descends.

The whole night had been a disaster. At the Ritz hotel's L'Espadon restaurant, Diana was forced to sit in full view of a dining-room filled with gawping strangers.

She felt exposed and helpless, as utterly miserable as she had done as a girl of 19, staying with Charles at Balmoral, all alone amid dinner parties of total strangers.

By the time she and Dodi stepped back into the Mercedes that night, planning to return to his flat, she was in a foul mood. All trace of romance had gone.

And that's what saved her life. Had she and Dodi been blissfully happy, cocooned in romance, she would have spent the journey snuggled next to him, with only his arms to hold her.

As it was, she sat on one side of the rear passenger seat, gazing out of the window, the gap between them an emotional Grand Canyon.

And so, as the speed of the chase intensified, and the limousine careered into the mouth of the underpass, she reached for her seat-belt and fastened it around her body.

When the Mercedes smashed into the tunnel's 13th pillar, the driver, Henri Paul, died instantly, virtually decapitated by the force of the impact.

The car, its bonnet smashed like a Dinky toy hit by a baseball bat, rebounded back into the road, spinning around as it went.

Dodi was flung around, sustaining fatal injuries. Diana, however, remained virtually untouched. Not a single bone was broken. When the emergency services arrived to drag her from the wreckage, there was barely a mark on her body.

The wounds to her mind were another matter. In public, she remained composed, invariably graceful, a people's Princess. But in private she suffered the nightmares, the flashbacks, the sudden moments of pure terror.

Years later, when she visited survivors of 9/11, or soldiers wounded in Iraq, she did not have to be told about their posttraumatic stress. She knew just how they felt.

And so we find Diana, a decade later, living in London. Four years have passed since her return from New York, the city to which she escaped in a bid to rebuild her life in the wake of the accident.

Her penthouse apartment is just off Knightsbridge, London SW1. Harvey Nichols is five minutes' walk away.

That's assuming, of course, that she could just stroll to the store, to flick through the racks of dresses or lunch with a girlfriend in the Fifth Floor restaurant, like any other wealthy, middle-aged lady.

But she is not just any middleaged lady. She is Diana.

She was born the daughter of an earl; transformed into the consort of a future King of England; then the wife of Wall Street mogul Theodore "Ted" Forstmann; now a single, not to say solitary woman once more.

At 46, she is still a beauty. Those luminous blue eyes sparkle and seduce, even if they now possess a mature self-awareness, rather than the doe-like coyness of the girl she once was. Three decades in the public eye have taught her more than any stylist could ever hope to know about how to dress her tall, broadshouldered, slim-hipped figure 40 - a figure saved from any suggestion of masculinity by a bust that once caused an ancient society beauty to snipe: "Wasn't that a mighty feast to set before a king?"

Diana possesses the iron discipline required of any woman who wants to keep her looks after 40.

A breakfast of pink grapefruit and a small bowl of muesli is followed, at least five days a week, by a workout at a nearby gym, chosen for its total privacy and discretion.

She does not drink, cuts down on carbohydrates, and avoids rich sauces and anything remotely resembling a pudding.

As a result, she has barely put on an ounce in a decade. Yet no one is immune to the ravages of time. Her skin has lost some of its luminous softness. The darkness around her eyes has deepened.

Her nose, never delicate, stands out just that touch more strongly than it did five or ten years ago. And the tightly-drawn skin around her cheekbones and jawline owes as much to her inner tension as to the skills of her discreet Manhattan surgeon.

Now she wanders through the apartment. Its light, airy rooms are painted in shades of off-white and enlivened by white lilies, whose scent pervades the air.

There are photographs of Diana everywhere, meeting monarchs and presidents, movie stars and rock gods, fashion designers and their supermodels.

Above all, there are pictures of her boys, William and Harry, the only two men in her entire life who have remained unswervingly loyal, unfailing in their willingness to return her love.

Her father, her brother, her two husbands, her many lovers 40 - all have rebuffed or betrayed her in the end (in her mind, if not in theirs).

As Diana once told Carole Caplin, to whom she was drawn by a shared passion for New Age fads and eccentric therapies: "Only the boys have been true."

And so, while the silly, Sloane Ranger knick-knacks that once decorated her Kensington Palace apartment have gone 40 - the porcelain figurines, the cartoons, the cushions embroidered with slogans such as: "You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince" 40 - one memory of the past remains.

In a living-room decorated with impeccable restraint there sits a five-foot long leather cushion, shaped like a rhinoceros.

As little boys, Wills and Harry sprawled across it while they watched TV. Now they are grown men, but their mother would never dream of taking it away.

It is 9am, the time when Diana always used to call her friends. Chatty and full of life in the morning, she would often be exhausted and demoralised by nightfall. But whom can she call now?

So many names in her addressbook have been erased. Like so many people left needy and insecure by an emotionally catastrophic childhood, Diana both craves companionship and drives it away.

So eager to please that she was happy to wash and clean for her friends, long after she had become a Princess, she now suffers from a crippling insecurity that makes her see slights and insults even when none are intended.

And then, of course, she must cope with that double burden, common to all female icons as they age: the erosion of their looks and stardom.

Diana's relationship with fame is still as complicated, as contradictory and as painful as those with her lovers, family and friends, for it is powered by the same push and pull.

Diana is the ultimate proof of Oscar Wilde's dictum that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

She says she despises the gossip that fills the newspaper with talk of her latest possible lover, yet still keeps scrapbooks of her cuttings, and gives off-the-record briefings to friendly journalists and even biographers.

She has even been known to tip off photographers about her romantic assignations, partly, it must be said, because there aren't so many paparazzi these days.

With each passing year, her star fades a little bit more. So, too, do her financial resources.

Diana has inherited money of her own and collected more than £25 million, tax-free, from her two massive divorce settlements, but her lifestyle

is extraordinarily expensive to maintain. She requires round-theclock security and travels by chauffeured limousine and private jet, if only to avoid the stares and whispers that follow her on scheduled flights.

She still has millions in the bank, but not as many as she once did.

Luckily, there is one certain way in which she can preserve her stardom and ease her financial worries. Later this year she will publish her autobiography, Queen Of Hearts.

After an unprecedented global bidding war, her agents sold a package of book, serial and TV rights for £15m, a world record for a single work of biography.

Later today, she will be meeting the editorial team assigned to manage the project. A return must be made on that gigantic investment. Discretion is not an option.

And so Diana must tell all. The moneymen want to know all the dirty details about her marriages.

They want to know about her affairs, whether real or rumoured, with her bodyguard Barry Mannakee, the Guards officer James Hewitt, the surgeon Hasnat Khan, the art dealer Oliver Hoare, the late Dodi Fayed and the others - the rugby captain, the Oscar-winner, the gravel-voiced rocker, to name but three.

And then they want to know about the crash - and everything that followed.

Diana has spoken in private to both French and British police investigating the deaths of Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed - indeed she is due to give evidence at the forthcoming inquest into Dodi's death, which has generated so many conspiracy theories over the years, fuelled by his father's insistence that Dodi was murdered.

In the first weeks after the crash, she had remained close to Mohamed Fayed and his family, sharing their pain and grief. But she had long since cut off contact, upset by Fayed's frequent claims that she and Dodi had been engaged.

Now she will have to go public about the crash and the true extent of her relationship with Dodi.

She must answer claims, made by her former butler, Paul Burrell, that she told him an attempt would be made on her life, by means of a staged "accident".

And she will have to answer the rumours, made without a shred of concrete supporting evidence, that she lost Dodi's baby in the crash.

And what about Charles? Diana's last public meeting with her sons' father was a polite but formal encounter at the Queen Mother's funeral in April 2002.

London swirls with gossip about the letters, emails and telephone calls they exchange, as all divorced parents must.

Some so-called experts claim the couple are barely able to maintain the pretence of civility, others insist they have become much closer over time, even hinting at the possibility that they may reunite.

Charles, after all, is still a single man. The public would never allow him to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, whom they still blame for the collapse of the royal marriage, while Diana is alive.

Divorced from his wife and denied the comfort of his lover, Charles, too, cuts a lonely figure. It is hardly surprising if sentimental royalists long for him and Diana to reunite.

Certainly, Diana has tried the alternatives, without any long-term success.

Tony Blair's vow to make her a roving ambassador for Britain, making formal use of her magical gift for empathising with the poor, the sick and the downtrodden, turned out to be as bogus as all his other promises - an attempt to harness her enduring popularity for his own political ends.

In the end, the mother of a future king could not accept a job so tainted by politics. Nor could she undertake missions that would inevitably compete with the Royal Family's own state visits.

In any case, Diana had her own life to sort out, her own needs to fulfil. She had always seen America as the land where she could reinvent herself. It was also a land filled with men who owned private jets.

Theodore Forstmann went one better. He liked Gulfstream jets so much he had bought the company. He acquired Diana, too, their relationship evolving from friendship, through love to marriage.

Diana was, of course, the ultimate trophy wife - a Jackie O for the new millennium, as the American Press had labelled her - but she was also the ultimate, if unintentional crusher of male egos.

Even a man like Forstmann, worth the best part of $1 billion, long known for his philanthropy, could not compete with her aura. He soon became Mr Diana, just as Charles had done.

A lifelong bachelor, he was used to running his life to suit himself. His feelings for Diana were genuine, but the strain proved too much and the marriage collapsed.

Unlike with Charles, she did not seek revenge in the divorce settlement: she asked only for the proceeds of the sale of the holiday home they had bought together in the Hamptons and $10m in cash.

And so Diana found herself back on the market, faced with all the difficulties that confront any single woman in her 40s, but multiplied a thousand-fold.

Plenty of men wanted to bed her: but their motives were all-too obvious. And where could she hope to find a man who was kind, loving, rich enough to afford her and strong enough to handle all the trouble he would have to bear?

The Duchess of York, Diana's old friend and once her fellow New Yorker, tried to find her work that could occupy her time and earn her money.

But it was one thing for Fergie to write children's books and promote Weightwatchers: she was the ex-wife of the second son. Diana was the mother of a future king - harsher standards applied to her.

When plans for a lecture tour of the U.S. were leaked to a British tabloid, provoking a flood of outraged comment, she realised there was little point in attempting to emulate Fergie's personal makeover.

So Diana had come back to London. There, at least, she can keep a maternal eye on her boys. They are the one achievement of which she is unreservedly proud, and with good reason.

The Princes are two strong, handsome, decent young men, serving their country, willing to risk their lives in its defence. But they are also a couple of red-blooded lads, who might get into trouble if left to their own devices.

Diana managed to stop Harry heading off to a fancy-dress party in a Nazi uniform (she had cold sweats just thinking about what might have happened if that picture had ever made the papers).

But she has not been able to stop him seeing Chelsy Davy.

Diana has nothing against Chelsy herself, who seems like a sweet enough girl. But her background conveys a sense of frivolous, nouveau riche vulgarity that makes her, and thus Harry, easy targets for disapproving pens.

Kate Middleton is quite another matter. Diana understands Kate, and the position in which she finds herself, better than anyone else on the planet. She knows what it is to love a Prince.

She understands the enormity of the price that must be paid for that love.

When she and Kate lunch in private at Diana's apartment, she can give her potential daughter-in-law guidance on everything from mastering palace etiquette to making sure the paparazzi always get her best angle.

But Diana cannot help feeling a twinge of envy towards Kate. She wishes she had the education, self-confidence and emotional security that Kate, the university graduate daughter of a loving, middle-class family, takes for granted.

And of course Kate is the younger woman, the newer attraction. Her picture is now more prized than Diana's. She is the one whose every new dress or hairstyle is examined with forensic detail.

For a woman who has spent almost three decades as a global icon, that relegation is hard to endure.

Diana's friends tell her that Kate is the best possible thing that could happen to her. If she takes the spotlight, then Diana may finally have a small measure of relative obscurity, a scrap of privacy in which to lead a normal life.

Maybe then she can walk to Harvey Nichols. Maybe then she can find a man. Maybe then she can live without bodyguards and private jets.

For now, though, she has an autobiography to write. When it is published, she will be back on top of the pile. For all those "maybes", it is still the place she wants to be.

• The Accident Man, by Tom Cain, is published by Bantam Press at £12.99

synergy777

24-08-2007, 01:19 PM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7054

Diana WAS Pregnant When She Died

Mark Reynolds in London and Ian Sparks in Paris – Daily Express.co.uk August 23, 2007

An investigative journalist, formerly of the reputable Paris Match magazine, claims to have uncovered the explosive proof from archives at the hospital where the Princess was taken after the crash on the night of August 31 1997.

The document has previously remained hidden for 10 years due to “ethical and privacy” concerns, according to respected investigative reporter Chris Lafaille.

The journalist makes the shocking claims in a new book called Diana, the Inquiry They Never Published to coincide with the tenth anniversary of her death later this month.

He said: “It is a near certainty Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.

“The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil.”

He added: “It has never been claimed or proved to be a fake.”

The revelation would explain why the Princess was illegally embalmed in the hours after her death. The process, carried out contrary to French law, meant any potential pregnancy test results would have been rendered invalid.

The pregnancy claims address one of the key questions set out by the coroner to be answered at the inquest into Diana’s death, which is due to begin in October. Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker recently listed 20 key issues he intends to explore during up to six months of hearings.

www.express.co.uk/posts/view/17094/Diana-was-nine-weeks-pregnant-when-she-died

indigo

25-08-2007, 12:00 AM

So no-one thinks prince harry is Prince Phillips son:confused: Now there a conspiracy:D someone show me a pic of harry and one of prrince phillip when he was younger

sidreighn

25-08-2007, 03:10 AM

synergy777

25-08-2007, 04:12 PM

Put me in a Room with George W, and I will deliver my very own war on terror! And I would happily go to jail for it!

many would thank you, lol

irie_dave

27-08-2007, 08:40 PM

I think both 'princes' are bad

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3205/princewilliamtx4.jpg

sunyatta60

28-08-2007, 12:52 PM

I remember that just before Diana was Murdered she was on holiday with Dodi, and swam over to the press and said to them I am going to make a statement that will shock the world. The disinformation experts have been to work ever since with all sorts of wild speculation. I personally think she was going to reveal to the world that we Mankind are enslaved by an Evil Alien Race that controls us covertly.

Imagine Tony Blair making this statement after he left office:

The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes
Benjamin Disralie

Here is a link to a Psychic who Channels the Spirit of Diana

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QAZkGvslTSM

sidreighn

28-08-2007, 06:30 PM

[QUOTE=sunyatta60;110269]I remember that just before Diana was Murdered she was on holiday with Dodi, and swam over to the press and said to them I am going to make a statement that will shock the world. The disinformation experts have been to work ever since with all sorts of wild speculation. I personally think she was going to reveal to the world that we Mankind are enslaved by an Evil Alien Race that controls us covertly.

Imagine Tony Blair making this statement after he left office:

The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes
Benjamin Disralie

Here is a link to a Psychic who Channels the Spirit of Diana

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wbZ83zF3jLU"]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wbZ83zF3jLU

I really do not think that is funny. Its appauling that people will try and make money out of such a tradgedy.

Nothing against you mate for posting it, the less I say about this the better. Its in keeping with what a lot of people think, just the presentation is lackin somewhat.

:eek:

[URL]="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wbZ83zF3jLU"]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wbZ83zF3jLU[URL]

Still don't trust MAF but I think he was right Dianna and Dodi were in love.

ngawaka19

29-08-2007, 02:44 AM

hey synergy hope your hapy and well, thanks for the links and info.

sunyatta60 nice to hear from you and thanks for the link, haven't had time to look yet but will, chur

sidreighn, love it, your a crack up mate thanks for the links.

love and light
ngawaka19

sunyatta60

29-08-2007, 11:24 AM

sidreighn

29-08-2007, 11:54 AM

I really do not think that is funny. Its appauling that people will try and make money out of such a tradgedy.

Hi Sid I think the guy was quite rightly having a pop at the Royals who did her in. If you went and stood with a placard outside Buck house with a poster trying to make that point you and anyone else would be arrested.
People have made political point through satire for thousands of years, just read Plato.
Anyway thanks to those guys who have welcomed me I hope I can make a positive contribution to this great forum.

``Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it.''
Thomas Paine

No problem, there is a thing called bad taste though.

Princess Dianna was murdered the day after my birthday, I said it at the time, only to be told "don't be daft!" - its funny how all these doubters have now changed their opinion some years later. One of these people is my mum, she accepts the official stand point on anything, hell if they said having both your legs sawn off is good for you she'd beleive it.

As for Mohammed Al Fayed, he is a persistant thorn in the Windsors side. Perhaps if he was present at a ritual he was in the dark as to what theis all symbolized. I don't think anyone could knowingly send their child to slaughter. Its funny how every investigation gets subdued by the press, and no one actively presses and presses for answers.

The UK has a thing called the "official secrets act!" as do most countries, there should be no secrets! Its amazing the goverment has this get out clause but whoa betide you if you stood in a court of law and refused to speak....I have known people who have tried and the judge said "I order you to answer the question!" - who the 4k??

I doubt the real facts will ever emerge, its already ben 10 years, in another ten it will be even harder to sort out. We know our goverment/s ar corrupt but yet do nothing to oust them. They have wars which we are lead to believe are with each other, yet they target the people who are often not involved. That would never ork in a school playground! Goverments are manipulative, and as we know they are in cahoots, so although I am hopeful of the new inquest into Diana's death, we are still playing by their rules, and for this reason, we know the outcome even now. :(

Some brilliant post on here, I am keen to hear what Al Fayed makes of it all. Although I don't trust the guy, you have to like him.

synergy777

01-09-2007, 01:03 AM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2

Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson

www.alfayed.com

(to Judge Herve Stephan)

I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva, Switzerland hereby declare:

1. I firmly believe that there exist documents held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would yield important new evidence into the cause and circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in August 1997.

2. I was employed by MI6 between September 1991 and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents that I believe would provide new evidence and new leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard various rumours, which though I was not able to see supporting documents I am confident were based on solid fact.

3. In 1992, I was working in the Eastern European Controllerate of MI6 and I was peripherally involved in a large and complicated operation to smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union. During 1992, I spent several days reading the substantial files on this operation. These files contain a wide miscellany of contact notes, telegrams, intelligence reports, photographs etc, from which it was possible to build up a detailed understanding of the operation. The operation involved a large cast of officers and agents of MI6. On more than one occasion, meetings between various figures in the operation took place at the Ritz Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There were in the file several intelligence reports on these meetings, which had been written by one of the MI6 officers based in Paris at the time (identified in the file only by a coded designation). The source of the information was an informant in the Ritz Hotel, who again was identified in the files only by a code number. The MI6 officer paid the informant in cash for his information. I became curious to learn more about the identity of this particular informant, because his number cropped up several times and he seemed to have extremely good access to the goings on in the Ritz Hotel. I therefore ordered this informants personal file from MI6's central file registry. When I read this new file, I was not at all surprised to learn that the informant was a security officer of the Ritz Hotel. Intelligence services always target the security officers of important hotels because they have such good access to intelligence. I remember, however, being mildly surprised that the nationality of this informant was French, and this stuck in my memory, because it is rare that MI6 succeeds in recruiting a French informer. I cannot claim that I remember from this reading of the file that the name of this person was Henri Paul, but I have no doubt with the benefit of hindsight that this was he. Although I did not subsequently come across Henri Paul again during my time in MI6, I am confident that the relationship between he and MI6 would have continued until his death, because MI6 would never willingly relinquish control over such a well-placed informant. I am sure that the personal file of Henri Paul will therefore contain notes of meetings between him and his MI6 controlling officer right up until the point of his death. I firmly believe that these files will contain evidence of crucial importance to the circumstances and causes of the incident that killed M. Paul, together with the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.

4. The most senior undeclared officer in the local MI6 station would normally control an informant of M. Paul's usefulness and seniority. Officers declared to the local counter-intelligence service (in this case the Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST) would not be used to control such an informant, because it might lead to the identity of the informant becoming known to the local intelligence services. In Paris at the time of M Paul's death, there were two relatively experienced but undeclared MI6 officers. The first was Mr Nicholas John Andrew LANGMAN, born 1960. The second was Mr Richard David SPEARMAN, again born in 1960. I firmly believe that either one or both of these officers will be well acquainted with M Paul, and most probably also met M. Paul shortly before his death. I believe that either or both of these officers will have knowledge that will be of crucial importance in establishing the sequence of events leading up to the deaths of M. Paul, Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales. Mr Spearman in particular was an extremely well connected and influential officer, because he had been, prior to his appointment in Paris, the personal secretary to the Chief of MI6 Mr David SPEDDING. As such, he would have been privy to even the most confidential of MI6 operations. I believe that there may well be significance in the fact that Mr Spearman was posted to Paris in the month immediately before the deaths.

5. Later in 1992, as the civil war in the former Yugoslavia became increasingly topical, I started to work primarily on operations in Serbia. During this time, I became acquainted with Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank FISHWICK, born 1958, the MI6 officer who at the time was in charge of planning Balkan operations. During one meeting with Dr Fishwick, he casually showed to me a three-page document that on closer inspection turned out to be an outline plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic. The plan was fully typed, and attached to a yellow "minute board", signifying that this was a formal and accountable document. It will therefore still be in existence. Fishwick had annotated that the document be circulated to the following senior MI6 officers: Maurice KENDWRICK-PIERCEY, then head of Balkan operations, John RIDDE, then the security officer for Balkan operations, the SAS liaison officer to MI6 (designation MODA/SO, but I have forgotten his name), the head of the Eastern European Controllerate (then Richard FLETCHER) and finally Alan PETTY, the personal secretary to the then Chief of MI6, Colin McCOLL. This plan contained a political justification for the assassination of Milosevic, followed by three outline proposals on how to achieve this objective. I firmly believe that the third of these scenarios contained information that could be useful in establishing the causes of death of Henri Paul, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed. This third scenario suggested that Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his personal limousine to crash. Dr Fishwick proposed to arrange the crash in a tunnel, because the proximity of concrete close to the road would ensure that the crash would be sufficiently violent to cause death or serious injury, and would also reduce the possibility that there might be independent, casual witnesses. Dr Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash might be to disorientate the chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device which is occasionally deployed by special forces to, for example, disorientate helicopter pilots or terrorists, and about which MI6 officers are briefed about during their training. In short, this scenario bore remarkable similarities to the circumstances and witness accounts of the crash that killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that this document should be yielded by MI6 to the Judge investigating these deaths, and would provide further leads that he could follow.

6. During my service in MI6, I also learnt unofficially and second-hand something of the links between MI6 and the Royal Household. MI6 are frequently and routinely asked by the Royal Household (usually via the Foreign Office) to provide intelligence on potential threats to members of the Royal Family whilst on overseas trips. This service would frequently extend to asking friendly intelligence services (such as the CIA) to place members of the Royal Family under discrete surveillance, ostensibly for their own protection. This was particularly the case for the Princess of Wales, who often insisted on doing without overt personal protection, even on overseas trips. Although contact between MI6 and the Royal Household was officially only via the Foreign Office, I learnt while in MI6 that there was unofficial direct contact between certain senior and influential MI6 officers and senior members of the Royal Household. I did not see any official papers on this subject, but I am confident that the information is correct. I firmly believe that MI6 documents would yield substantial leads on the nature of their links with the Royal Household, and would yield vital information about MI6 surveillance on the Princess of Wales in the days leading to her death.

7. I also learnt while in MI6 that one of the "paparazzi" photographers who routinely followed the Princess of Wales was a member of "UKN", a small corps of part-time MI6 agents who provide miscellaneous services to MI6 such as surveillance and photography expertise. I do not know the identity of this photographer, or whether he was one of the photographers present at the time of the fatal incident. However, I am confident that examination of UKN records would yield the identity of this photographer, and would enable the inquest to eliminate or further investigate that potential line of enquiry.

8. On Friday August 28 1998, I gave much of this information to Judge Herve Stephan, the French investigative Judge in charge of the inquest into the accident. The lengths, which MI6, the CIA and the DST have taken to deter me giving this evidence and subsequently to stop me talking about it, suggests that they have something to hide.

9. On Friday 31 July 1998, shortly before my appointment with Judge Herve Stephan, the DST arrested me in my Paris hotel room. Although I have no record of violent conduct I was arrested with such ferocity and at gunpoint that I received a broken rib. I was taken to the headquarters of the DST, and interrogated for 38 hours. Despite my repeated requests, I was never given any justification for the arrest and was not shown the arrest warrant. Even though I was released without charge, the DST confiscated from me my laptop computer and Psion organiser. They illegally gave these to MI6 who took them back to the UK. They were not returned for six months, which is illegal and caused me great inconvenience and financial cost.

10. On Friday 7th August 1998 I boarded a Qantas flight at Auckland International airport, New Zealand, for a flight to Sydney, Australia where I was due to give a television interview to the Australian Channel Nine television company. I was in my seat, awaiting take off, when an official boarded the plane and told me to get off. At the airbridge, he told me that the airline had received a fax "from Canberra" saying that there was a problem with my travel papers. I immediately asked to see the fax, but I was told that "it was not possible". I believe that this is because it didn't exist. This action was a ploy to keep me in New Zealand so that the New Zealand police could take further action against me. I had been back in my Auckland hotel room for about half an hour when the New Zealand police and NZSIS, the New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service, raided me. After being detained and searched for about three hours, they eventually confiscated from me all my remaining computer equipment that the French DST had not succeeded in taking from me. Again, I didn't get some of these items back until six months later.

11. Moreover, shortly after I had given this evidence to Judge Stephan, I was invited to talk about this evidence in a live television interview on America's NBC television channel. I flew from Geneva to JFK airport on Sunday 30 August to give the interview in New York on the following Monday morning. Shortly after arrival at John F Kennedy airport, the captain of the Swiss Air flight told all passengers to return to their seats. Four US Immigration authority officers entered the plane, came straight to my seat, asked for my passport and identity, and then frogmarched me off the plane. I was taken to the immigration detention centre, photographed, fingerprinted, manacled by my ankle to a chair for seven hours, served with deportation papers (exhibit 1) and then returned on the next available plane to Geneva. I was not allowed to make any telephone calls to the representatives of NBC awaiting me in the airport. The US Immigration Officers - who were all openly sympathetic to my situation and apologised for treating me so badly - openly admitted that they were acting under instructions from the CIA.

12. In January of this year, I booked a chalet in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for a ten day snowboarding holiday with my parents. I picked up my parents from Geneva airport in a hire car on the evening of January 8, and set off for the French border. At the French customs post, our car was stopped and I was detained. Four officers from the DST held me for four hours. At the end of this interview, I was served with the deportation papers below (exhibit 2), and ordered to return to Switzerland. Note that in the papers, my supposed destination has been changed from "Chamonix" to "Samoens". This is because when first questioned by a junior DST officer, I told him that my destination was "Chamonix". When a senior officer arrived an hour or so later, he crossed out the word and changed it to "Samoens", without ever even asking or confirming this with me. I believe this is because MI6 had told them of my true destination, having learnt the information through surveillance on my parent's telephone in the UK. My banning from France is entirely illegal under European law. I have a British passport and am entitled to travel freely within the European Union. MI6 have "done a deal" with the DST to have me banned, and have not used any recognised legal mechanism to deny my rights to freedom of travel. I believe that the DST and MI6 have banned me from France because they wanted to prevent me from giving further evidence to Judge Stephan's inquest, which at the time, I was planning to do.

13. Whatever MI6s role in the events leading to the death of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul, I am absolutely certain that there is substantial evidence in their files that would provide crucial evidence in establishing the exact causes of this tragedy. I believe that they have gone to considerable lengths to obstruct the course of justice by interfering with my freedom of speech and travel, and this in my view confirms my belief that they have something to hide. I believe that the protection given to MI6 files under the Official Secrets Act should be set aside in the public interest in uncovering once and for all the truth behind these dramatic and historically momentous events.

The above testimony was made to the French inquiry into Princess Diana's death, headed by Judge Herve Stephan and subsequently ignored by both the inquiry itself and the media. Since testifying, Britain's security establishment has hounded Tomlinson to the point where he now lives in virtual exile in Cannes, France. However, he has not entirely disappeared and now keeps a weblog detailing his ongoing skirmishes with both French and British authorities.

sidreighn

03-09-2007, 11:12 AM

That is very interesting, but I would hope this person would try and air this again in any which way he can.

To suffer the ammount of upheival he did suggests there is more to this than meets the eye.

It saddens me that the global network have stooges in al walks of life, so even if on realises there is something amiss with the official story, they always seem to have another puppet waiting in the wings, or another country to work on their behalf.

I read this on Al Fayeds site and thought it was a nice passage...

“ There can be no greater heartache
for a parent than knowing that your
child is going to die before you.

Making the most of the precious time
remaining is so important.”

- Mohamed Al Fayed

chattanova

04-09-2007, 12:50 PM

THE mystery over Princess Diana’s fatal car crash took another twist yesterday when startling new evidence emerged about the death of a key witness.

http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/9/9/4/f_180861m_1a8ec42.jpg

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/18086/Diana-Vital-new-evidence-blows-apart-police-case

synergy777

05-09-2007, 04:39 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=480112&in_page_id=1811

Entire 6,000 page Diana dossier 'disappears' from Paris archives
Bizarre disappearance will fuel conspiracy theories

Last updated at 14:20pm on 5th September 2007

The disappearance of the files will fuel conspiracy theories surrounding Diana's death

The entire 6,000-page French legal dossier into the death of Princess Diana has vanished from the court archives in Paris, a lawyer claimed last night.

The mass of official documents - which stand one metre tall - was stored at the Palais de Justice central court building in the French capital.

It was compiled over three years during the official investigation in crash by French investigating magistrate Judge Herve Stephan.

But lawyer Jean-Louis Pelletier - who represents Paris paparazzi Fabrice Chassery - said when he asked to view the dossier, he was told it had disappeared.

Even a search of the court documents archives below the court building failed to uncover the hundreds of missing files.

The bizarre disappearance will fuel conspiracy theories that the highly sensitive dossier has been stolen because it contains information that Diana's death was more than a simple accident.

Another possibility is that bungling French court workers have simply "lost" the mountain of paperwork.

Other copies of the dossier still exist however. One has been sent to Lord Stevens, who is heading the British investigation into Paris accident, and another made for Lord Justice Scott Baker, the coroner at the inquest into Diana's death in London this October.

The disappearance of the Paris dossier now raises the near comic prospect of the British having to give the French back a copy of their own missing paperwork, which they sent Britain in 2005.

In Paris, Mr Pelletier said he needed to view the dossier because his client Mr Chassery, who arrived at the crash scene on the night Diana died on August 31, 1997, was still being pursued for manslaughter over the crash.

He said: "When I went in to the court to ask to see the files, I was told they weren't there.

"I know files go missing from time to time, but bearing in mind the size and importance of this particular one, it is extraordinary."

The original dossier contains thousands of pages of witness statements, the results of forensic tests on drunk chauffeur Henri Paul, photos of the crash scene and of those who died, and crucial interviews with all those involved in one of the biggest investigations in French legal history.

Copies of the dossier that were made only contained photocopies of signed documents and many did not include any photographs of the victims or the crash scene, Mr Pelletier said.

The dossier was 6,000 pages charting the investigation into the Paris crash that killed the princess

Diana inquest jury will visit crash site, coroner reveals

He added: "I went to every different part of the court building, thinking perhaps it had been moved from the high court archives to the criminal court or the appeal court, but no one could find it.

"A search on the computer to try to locate also revealed nothing.

"I am amazed that something like this could simply vanish."

Mr Pelletier said he needed to view parts of the dossier to defend his client against an ongoing prosecution by Mohamed Al Fayed that the French photographers who followed Diana's car on the night she died had caused the crash.

A spokesman for the Palais de Justice said: "Several requests have been made by those connected to the Diana crash investigation to view the dossier, but the paperwork is not immediately available."

It is the second time this year that elements of the dossier have vanished.

Mr Pelletier said when he viewed the dossier last May, he found photos of Diana and Dodi taken at the crash scene had gone.

He said: "It was odd. One week the photo was there and the next it was gone.

"It was a photo taken by my client Mr Chassery and at the time I believed it had been stolen. But now it is much worse. The entire dossier has gone missing."

Add your comment Comments (2)

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below?

Documents one metre high don't just disappear from a central court building.To me this gets more and more curious.

- Mike, Dunstable, England

Is anyone really surprised at this news?

- John, Surrey

synergy777

15-09-2007, 07:02 PM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7184

Queen to Strip Harrods of its Royal Crest
Andrew Golden – Sunday Mirror, Aug 31, 1997

I posted this on the AOL Royal News boards last night and it was swiftly removed... without any notification... It does show why Diana had to die... Is it one for the Truthseeker? Kind regards…

The Royal Family may withdraw their seal of approval from Harrods ... as a result of Diana's affair with owner's son Dodi Fayed. The top people's store - with its long and proud tradition of royal patronage - may be about to lose the Prince of Wales royal crest. Senior Palace courtiers are ready to advise the Queen that she should refuse to renew the prestigious royal warrants for the Knightsbridge store when they come up for review in February.

It would be a huge blow to the ego of store owner Mohammed Al Fayed - and would infuriate Diana, who was yesterday understood to be still with Dodi aboard his yacht, near the Italian island of Sardinia. But the Royal Family are furious about the frolics of Di, 36, and Dodi, 41, which they believe have further undermined the monarchy. Prince Philip, in particular, has made no secret as to how he feels about his daughter-in-law's latest man, referring to Dodi as an "oily bed-hopper".

At Balmoral next week, the Queen will preside over a meeting of The Way Ahead Group where the Windsors sit down with their senior advisers to discuss policy matters. MI6 has prepared a special report on the Egyptian-born Fayeds which will be presented to the meeting.

The delicate subject of Harrods and its royal warrants is also expected to be discussed. And the Fayeds can expect little sympathy from Philip. A friend of the royals said yesterday: "Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds - at a dinner party, during a country shoot and while on a visit to close friends in Germany.

"He's been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry.

"Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy.

"Options must include possible exile, although that would be very difficult as, all said and done, she is the mother of the future King of England.

"She has also been warned about social ostracism. But Diana's attitude is if that means not having to deal with the royals and their kind, then she would be delighted."

Appearing hours before her 'accident', the above article reveals the depths of royal disapproval Diana had generated.

COMMENT – News Alliance.com

There are some who believe Diana may be past caring and has decided to look towards those who can afford to keep her in the lifestyle to which she became accustomed. The Fayed family have all the trappings of vast wealth... wherever it originated from.

And Dodi has told Diana what he has told many of his other beautiful girlfriends in the past: "It's my father's store and you can have what you want. Charge it to my account and I'll just sign the bill." But now the Royal Family may decide it is time to settle up.

After their brief trip to Paris, Diana spent virtually every free moment with Dodi at his apartment in London’s Park Lane or together at Kensington Palace, which rankled the royals greatly. Prince Philip was enraged that the “oily little bed-hopper” was shacked up with Diana, their constant thorn, in a royal palace. The royals went apoplectic.

When photographed arriving at Dodi’s apartment, Diana walked in without a care who saw her. She seemed to be telling the world that her romance was for real and that she had nothing to hide. Dodi had their meals ferried in on silver trays from the nearby Harry’s Bar. Just months before Diana was accustomed to smuggling her lover, Dr Hasnat Khan, into KP hidden in a blanket in the back of her car driven by her butler Paul Burrell. But things had changed and for the better and she could at last be open about her relationship with the Harrod’s heir.

When she was informed by a courtier that Prince Charles was expressing ‘concern’ about the effect the new man in her life might be causing on their sons, Diana said his worries were ‘laughable’ in view of his own undisguised affection for a woman other than their mother. What was good for the goose, was good for the gander and Charles did not like it one bit.

The suave heir to Al Fayed’s vast fortune would make Diana an ideal husband, announced blonde Sky News presenter Tania Bryer, who had dated Dodi in the past. “He is warm and gentle. Not an aggressive macho sort. I can see why he appeals to Diana,” she warbled, paid to incite such juicy gossip 24/7. “He is absolutely charming and one of the most genuine people you could meet.”

Diana seemed to have come to the same conclusion. She was not concerned about this latest insight of her private life, and assured friends: “I am in good hands!” A confidante of the princess was quoted as saying, “Her friends are in no doubt that the princess is in love. It is the real thing.”

There was real sexual chemistry between them, said one journalist when shown intimate photographs of the couple taken aboard the Jonikal. “They are oblivious to everyone and everything around them!” The Queen’s courtiers were equally eager to assure their press contacts that the “whole thing is an act”, to annoy the Royal Family.

In 2005, Piers Morgan, former editor of the Daily Mirror wrote in The Insider, ‘Lots of pictures of her [Diana’s] boys, the young heirs, the men who will perhaps kill off, or secure, the very future of the monarchy’. And yet Morgan despite his friendship with Mark Bolland, an aide to Prince Charles, was convinced that Diana and Dodi were for real.

One of the photographs to which he was referring - of the bikini-clad princess kissing Dodi on the deck of the Jonikal – was splashed across the front page of the Daily Mirror. Piers Morgan had bought it on a one-day-exclusive basis from an Italian paparazzi photographer who had staked out the yacht. The following day the picture was bought by other national newspapers and given similar premier treatment.

It made the photographer more than £1 million – a sheer indication of the incredible interest in their romance at the time. Publication of grainy photographs did not cause the princess’s smile to wane in the slightest. In fact she asked the photographers why the pictures were so “grainy”. She was revelling in it. Of interests also, the princess was not complaining that her privacy was being invaded.

There was a palpable sense of relief that their relationship was right out there in the open and that the world’s press were fixated on them. Diana was dictating the pace of events, as she loved, and the royals hated every minute of being overshadowed again. Diana was rubbing it in and she knew it and so did the royals. The British Establishment had reached zero tolerance with Diana and her risqué relationship with the son of their arch-enemy Al Fayed.

For one so deeply concerned that she was a target for assassination, Diana was doing everything she could think of to invite that eventuality. A covert relationship was one thing but flaunting it so openly was another and yet it was lost on the royals that Diana was the world’s foremost celebrity and the colossal interest of the press in her every move was inevitable and indeed highly profitable for the press barons.

The counter-attack on the Al Fayeds and Diana in the public domain was imminent. The royals were waiting on MI6 to complete the dossier before leaking it to the press through their courtiers. The battle-lines were drawn irrevocably and there was no turning back. The royals and Charles in particular greatly feared what Diana might leak to Al Fayed. It was common knowledge in royal circles that Diana kept a ‘treasure trove’ of highly damaging secrets at KP and their revelation could bring down the monarchy.

And the slightest thought of marriage between the princess and the son of Mohamed Al Fayed sent shudders of revulsion through the ranks of Buckingham Palace courtiers. They were not impressed by the remark of Dodi’s friend, who said: “With him, Diana can have everything the royal family gave her, without the annoyance of the royal family.” The conflict grew wider and more serious albeit behind the scenes for the most part.

On 8 August, Diana was snapped leaving Dodi’s apartment adjacent the Dorchester Hotel at one in the morning. Just hours later she flew to Bosnia to further her anti-landmines campaign. She had become more than a troublesome thorn in the Royal Family’s side, she was also considered to be a menace by the majority of the world’s arms industry. Her visit to Bosnia was a direct threat to their billons and escalation of the campaign to ban the use of Landmines.

Diana, radiant and forever smiling in the face of adversity, had focused the world’s attention on the landmines issue. In Bosnia, she was greeted by over sixty photographers. She highlighted the very real human misery caused by the deployment of landmines. For three days she talked to surviving victims of random mines. People who had lost limbs and suffered hideous debilitating injuries, were embraced by Diana and she made them feel special with her special brand of magic.

One newspaper described Diana as a “Mother Teresa with a crown” and experienced opinion-shapers were astonished that this not very eloquent woman had become the most influential personality in the world. At the Pentagon and among some of America’s wealthiest arms dealers, the realisation dawned that Diana had become their most potent and vitriolic opponent, threatening their vast power base. Former British Foreign Secretary Lord Howe, had dubbed Diana as a “loose cannon” and at any time she could blow up in their faces.

The moneyed elite of the Western world needed to eliminate the Diana threat. Their opportunity to destroy her in the public domain did not exist as Diana had become almost saintly in the eyes of billions of people across the world. Attacks on Diana’s character in the media, repeatedly backfired and she seemed invulnerable. Politicians across the West were stunned by the ease of her rise to international stardom. How could an icon be stopped?

On 15 August, Diana flew to Greece for a cruise with her good friend Rosa Monckton, and borrowed Mohamed Al Fayed’s private jet to take them there. For one so distrustful of anything and everything to do with the State, it is perhaps a little strange that Diana struck up such a close friendship with Rosa Monckton, given the constant rumours that circulated about her husband’s close ‘connections’ to MI6. But ‘friends’ they were and Rosa Monckton would later prove to be a greater friend to the British establishment than Diana could ever have imagined.

On 21 August, both Diana and Dodi were back in London, he having returned from Los Angeles, presumably on a fact finding mission to find a suitable property to house the princess. Diana returned briefly to Kensington Palace to freshen up before returning to Battersea Heliport and then back on to Stansted Airport and the refuelled Gulfstream private jet. They headed back to the yacht Jonikal and another holiday together on the Côte d’Azur.

From Nice Airport the loving couple were whisked by car to where the Jonikal awaited them offshore at St. Laurent-de-Var, and while they rested, the yacht’s captain Luigi del Tevere, motored south to St Tropez where they anchored at 02.00hrs. Early the next morning they headed to Pamplona Bay where Dodi and Diana joined Mohamed Al Fayed and his wife and four children for lunch. As they left late that afternoon, the Jonikal was being tailed by a small flotilla of press boats.

The presence of the ubiquitous paparazzi didn’t faze Diana in the slightest. The next morning, Diana was up and about long before Dodi. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones recalls that she looked stunning in her bathing suit and made absolutely no effort to hide from the rapacious snappers.

During the late afternoon they anchored off St. Jean Cap Ferrat, from where Dodi planned to take Diana shopping and sightseeing in nearby Monaco. On their trip ashore, Dodi’s butler René says that they gave their bodyguards the slip while they toured the chic area of Monte Carlo and popped into Alberto Repossi, Dodi’s favourite jeweller in the Hermitage Hotel.

In his book, Trevor Rees-Jones denies a visit was made to Repossi’s even though Mohamed Al Fayed obtained the CCTV footage of the couple actually in the store. Rees-Jones denial is irrelevant: the ring, which Dodi would collect from the Paris branch a week later, was real enough.

Off Portofino in Italy, the next day, the young lovers chose to stay aboard the Jonikal as the paparazzi were visible in force on the shore. The pair showed no embarrassment about being seen kissing and cuddling during their sunbathing sessions on deck. Even when they were in full sight of the paparazzi, their intimate displays of affection did not abate in the slightest. They were loving every moment of it and the world’s press lapped it up and their readers were insatiable for news of the princess and her exotic lover.

By Friday, 29 August, they were anchored off Cala di Volpe, a private resort in Sardinia, where they slipped ashore unseen by the hunting press pack. The paparazzi attention was suffocating and the couple decided to move on. The decision to fly to Paris was made early that evening. A flight plan was filed from Sardinia’s Olbia Airport for the next day. Staff were instructed that the couple would spend a day in Paris before going on to London.

The Ritz Hotel was advised from the Fayed nerve centre in London that the couple would be arriving in Paris on the Saturday afternoon, a copy of the memo went to acting head of security Henri Paul! He immediately cancelled a planned weekend away with close friends and put himself back on the rota to be in charge of the reception at Le Bourget Airport.

The main reason for going to Paris, Dodi advised the Harrod’s HQ in London, was to pick up a ring. Dodi told his step-uncle, Hussein Yassin, a former press attaché at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, who was stayed at the Ritz that weekend: “Diana and I are getting married. You’ll know about it officially very soon.” And Hussein’s niece, also in Paris, received a similar call that fateful Saturday evening. A gushing Dodi told her, “Our marriage will be founded on true love.”

A formal announcement was planned, Dodi told them, after the princess had broken the news to her two sons when they were reunited the following day. It was already decided that the ring he was collecting from Repossi, in the Place Vendôme, would be her engagement ring.

Speaking to the Paget Investigation of Sir John Stevens, Dodi’s butler René Delorm said: “In the book I explain how Dodi told me to have Champagne on ice ready for when they returned from dinner on 30th / 31st August 1997. He told me that he was going to propose to the Princess and showed me a ring. I will explain this incident in greater detail later in my statement. What I left out of that story was that later that evening I went to enter the living room; I coughed to announce my presence and saw the Princess sitting on the coffee table. Dodi was on one knee in front of her, caressing her belly and she was looking at her hand. The only thing I heard, was her say the word ‘Yes.’”

By the time the Gulfstream private jet set down at le Bourget Airport in the northern environs of Paris at 15.22hrs, Diana was as confident as she would ever be that she was truly in love with a good man and more importantly, ready to tell the whole world about it. When their door opened onto the area reserved for private aircraft, the contrast with the Côte d’Azur could not have been greater. There was not the slightest hint of a wind, everything was still, eerily so and the temperature was already soaring in the high eighties.

The British Embassy was not informed that Princess Diana was arriving but waiting by the runway, unbidden, but provided by a ‘considerate’ government, were the motorcycle outriders and black cars of the French diplomatic protection service – Service de Protection des Hautes Personnalité.

Normally, the princess would have been entitled to a phalanx of SPHP officers and protocol would have made it impossible to refuse them. But Diana had made her feelings perfectly clear to Dodi. The SPHP were not needed and Diana by then had a profound distrust of everything to do with government and state, particularly the British State.

Dodi Fayed was a passive man and readily agreed to almost anything Diana proposed or imposed. Dodi politely refused the SPHP and insisted, on Diana’s instructions, that his own personal bodyguards were more than capable of protecting them both. He would ensure the princess’s safety and his own. In this of course he was mistaken, disastrously so, as events were to prove. His bodyguards were not used to the frenetic press pack and blows were soon exchanged between the paparazzi and the Fayed security team.

And at Le Bourget a veritable army of photographers were waiting for the princess and her lover, forever hungry for the slightest morsel of newsworthy material. With photographers making vast sums for even grainy shots of the couple together, it was understandable they would gather en masse to ghost Diana everywhere she went. The paparazzi had already earned a new title as the ‘stalkerazzi’ and were living up to their notoriety.

Diana rejected a final offer of SPHP protection, a decision borne of her distrust of government security officers. Diana’s fear of official ‘security’ personnel by far outweighed her dislike of the stalkerazzi, whose preferred transport in Paris, she would learn, was motorcycles and scooters. Their persistence and sheer aggression, would make the antics of their Mediterranean cousins seem almost benign by comparison.

www.news-alliance.com/mi6_dossier_on_al_fayed.html

chattanova

13-10-2007, 01:54 PM

Diana witness had to swerve to avoid slow moving 'light-coloured' car seconds before the crash

'A driver has told how he was forced to avoid a 'light-coloured' car driving 'extremely slowly' into the Alma tunnel just seconds before the crash which claimed Princess Diana's life. David Laurent claimed the car, possibly a Fiat Uno, was travelling at little more than 18mph, forcing him to pull at speed into another lane.The limit in the underpass is 31mph.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487133&in_page_id=1770

http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/9/10/13/f_diana2468x4m_a93f48e.jpg

chattanova

26-10-2007, 04:19 PM

Witness says Princess Diana spoke after fatal car crash

A rescuer who tried to help Princess Diana after her Paris car crash said Thursday that the princess spoke as she lay in the wreckage, repeating the words "oh my God" over and over.

Damian Dalby told an inquest into Diana's death that he and his brother rushed over to the wreckage of the princess' Mercedes after it crashed in the Pont d'Alma tunnel on Aug. 31, 1997.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3464157%2C00.html

synergy777

01-12-2007, 03:45 PM

bump.

never forget dodi and princess diana. their union could have brought peace to the world, a union of east and west. the worlds royal couple. lets hope they are together in another place, far from the dark forces here in this world.

synergy777

10-12-2007, 05:45 PM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7653

Duke's aide to face Diana inquest
Press Association – Updated December 9, 2007

The Duke of Edinburgh's top aide is to appear at the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, this week.

Private secretary Brigadier Sir Miles Hunt-Davis is certain to be asked about Harrods tycoon Mohamed al Fayed's claim that the Duke ordered Diana's "murder" in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

The Princess's close friend Rosa Monkton and her stepmother Raine, Countess Spencer, are also listed to give evidence as the inquest enters its 11th week.

In a key few days of evidence Alberto Repossi - the jeweller at the centre of claims that Dodi Fayed had bought an an engagement ring for the Princess - and MP Nicholas Soames, whom Diana allegedly "feared", will also be called.

Others listed include Philippe Doucin, a barman who says he sold drinks to driver Henri Paul at the Ritz Hotel in Paris on the night of the crash, and Dr Arnaud Derossi, who co-ordinated the medical response at the scene of the tragedy in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in the early hours of August 31 1997.

Mohamed al Fayed, whose son Dodi was killed in the crash with Diana and Henri Paul, is convinced the couple were murdered in an MI6 plot which he believes was ordered by the Duke of Edinburgh.

He believes the couple were poised to announce their engagement when they died and that Diana was pregnant with Dodi's child.

Sir Miles is likely to be asked about the whereabouts of correspondence between the Duke and the Princess, which her former butler Paul Burrell claims existed - part of a box of correspondence dubbed the "crown jewels".

The coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker has already told the jury that it is probable the letters from the Duke existed but added: "Where they went and whether they still exist remains a mystery."

Lord Stevens' Operation Paget report into the conspiracy allegation cites Diana's friend Roberto Devorik as listing Nicholas Soames - a friend of the Prince of Wales - as one of three people Diana allegedly "feared" alongside the Duke of Edinburgh and Lord Robert Fellowes.

www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7134484,00.html

saturn

10-12-2007, 06:42 PM

obviously this duke's aide will lie. the outcome of this inquest is clear as well. they will say it was an accident and that mohammed al fayed was to blame for poor security. (won't be surprised if a few months later he dies and they say his guilt and grief killed him. )

find the bit about the pompous soames being called very interesting. shortly before her death he sent her death threats over the phone for her landmine campaign, and later denied having done so. he has always been a dedicated enemy of diana, moreso than any of charles' other cronies. i wonder what crap will fly from his mouth this time.

it's all a travesty really. it's as plain as day that she was murdered, and the people responsible will once again get away with murder. they control everything and will get the verdict they want.

one of the main reasons she was killed off was because she was a threat to their nwo agenda. she had influence on the world stage that was frightening. the success of her last mission proved that. they plan events in advance and they must have worried what she would do when they attacked iraq for instance. if she had campaigned against that as well, people would have listened and made it more difficult for blair and bush.

it's sad that a genocide-lover like the fascist duke of edingburgh should live to a ripe old age, no doubt continuing to wreck havoc with his hatred and anti-humanism, while a young diana should die just when she had finally found happiness. she may have left the royal family but that didn't make her any safer from them. like all abusive partners, the royals were most dangerous when deserted.

chattanova

12-12-2007, 06:09 PM

Diana driver 'did not seem drunk'

Princess Diana's driver Henri Paul did not appear to be drunk just hours before the fatal car crash, her inquest has been told.

Sebastien Trotte, a former barman at the Ritz in Paris where Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were staying, said he served Mr Paul in the hotel's Bar Vendome.

He said Mr Paul drank two 4cl measures of Ricard - aniseed spirit - but did not appear to be "in any sense drunk".

Mr Paul died along with Diana and Mr Al Fayed in the crash on 31 August 1997.

Bodyguards

Mr Trotte gave evidence to the High Court inquest in London by video link from Paris.

He said he served Mr Paul as he sat with bodyguards while they waited "for the signal" for the princess and Mr Al Fayed to leave.

Ian Burnett QC, counsel for the inquest, asked him: "Did he appear to you to have had too much to drink?"

Mr Trotte replied: "No."

"Did he appear to you to be in any sense drunk?" Mr Burnett said.

"No," Mr Trotte answered.

He said Mr Paul and the bodyguards "were all a bit nervous".

Another former Ritz barman, Philippe Doucin, also gave evidence on Tuesday.

He said Mr Paul appeared "preoccupied, agitated and tense", behaviour he assumed was due to the pressure of driving such high-profile clients.

But Mr Doucin also said Mr Paul did not show signs of being drunk.

'Looking for a ring'

The court also heard evidence from Emanuele Gobbo, an employee of Repossi jewellers in Paris.

Mr Al Fayed visited his store hours before his death, accompanied by Claude Roulet, assistant president of the Ritz.

Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mr Al Fayed's father Mohamed, asked Mr Gobbo: "Do you remember their interest was in rings and especially engagement rings?"

Mr Gobbo said: "The word 'engagement' ring was never pronounced. It was for sure he was looking for a ring, but he never said it was for an engagement ring."

On Monday, store owner Alberto Repossi claimed Mr Al Fayed had asked for an engagement ring to be made in Diana's size.

Nicholas Hilliard QC, counsel to the inquest, suggested the ring that was later delivered to Mr Al Fayed was ready-made "for people on a more limited budget", rather than someone of his wealth.

The inquest continues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7138680.stm

synergy777

13-12-2007, 12:49 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=501520&in_page_id=1770

Diana's stepmother: 'She WAS in love with Dodi - and they would have got married'
By PAUL HARRIS - More by this author »

Last updated at 01:37am on 13th December 2007

Princess Diana was "madly in love" with Dodi Fayed and was probably about to marry him, her stepmother insisted yesterday.

Raine, Countess Spencer told the inquest on the couple that it was "highly likely" they would have become engaged and married - or at least started living together.

But in her first detailed testimony about the relationship, she said she believed Diana was too "old-fashioned" to become pregnant outside marriage - and that she never mentioned it during their intimate conversations
Lady Spencer, 78, spent more than an hour in the witness box yesterday as the inquest approached its 12th week.

She declared that Dodi had made Diana happier than she had been for years; that the princess was "obsessed" with fortune-tellers and soothsayers; and that Diana was convinced she was being followed and some harm would befall her.

Then, in an unscheduled appeal to the jury, the countess asked them to "tear aside any cover-up" and solve the mystery of their deaths in a Paris underpass at the end of August, 1997.

A GRAND ARRIVAL

Lady Spencer was driven through the judges' entrance to the court in the back of a Rolls-Royce.

Save for a beige scarf she was entirely in black, with a veil over her face. It was lifted for the witness box but the hat stayed on. For more than an hour, with a few seconds' exception, she maintained a smile so powerful it could almost have cracked glass. Her voice was calm and measured.

Ian Burnett QC, for the coroner, asked: "Are you Raine, Countess Spencer?"

Yes she was, she said. "Widow of Earl Spencer, father of Diana, Princess of Wales?"

Yes she was. "And you were her stepmother?" Lady Spencer seemed to hesitate at the word, and simply nodded in reply.

Was it right that her relationship with Diana and his two other children was not always happy? "Correct," she replied.

After Earl Spencer died in 1992, she was "devastated" and felt "bereft" without him.

Did her relationship with Diana restart after that?

"Yes," she replied. "At her instigation."

Stepmother and stepdaughter would talk frequently and sometimes intimately.

Lady Spencer told the court that by 1996, she and Diana had become very friendly with Dodi's father, Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, and met for lunch one day.

Lady Spencer's marriage after the earl's death had fallen apart.

"Diana jokingly said, 'Isn't it terrible about Raine? What can we do about her, Mohamed?'

"Mohamed said, 'I know - I'll give her a job'. He always made great jokes and we thought he was joking."

But two weeks later he invited her to become a director of Harrods International Ltd, and later of Harrods Management Ltd and Harrods Estate Ltd.

In July 1997, Diana spent ten days with sons William and Harry at Mr Al Fayed's house in St Tropez. It was there that she met Dodi for the first time. She returned to France for a few days without the boys and was photographed kissing Dodi on a cruise.

They enjoyed a third French holiday in late August which culminated in their fateful stay at the Ritz in Paris.

DODI THE CHARMER

Diana and Dodi were 'deeply' in love, according to Countess Spencer
Lady Spencer told the jury that she did not know Dodi well but always found him "absolutely charming ... very sweet, very quiet, very modest, with beautiful manners'".

After Diana had met him "she couldn't wait to tell me all about it. She said she'd had a fantastic time. She really enjoyed it."

Lady Spencer was aware that Diana was also seeing heart surgeon Hasnat Khan at that time.

"She started talking a great deal about Dodi and it then became very clear that she was having lots of dinners and outings with him and that he was being very sweet to her and that they were extremely happy."

Diana, she said, believed Dodi was "very special". He was "suddenly the most marvellous thing to happen to her".

Asked where she thought the relationship was going, she told the jury: "In my view it was certainly getting stronger and stronger and stronger, and they were certainly getting closer."

In a statement she made last month, the court was told, Lady Spencer had insisted: "Diana was madly in love with him. Diana's life was a great strain. She suddenly met someone who adored her, and whom she adored and found attractive. It may be that she was on the rebound from Hasnat Khan."

MARRIAGE ON THE CARDS?

It was "highly likely" that Diana would have married Dodi, or, at the very least, that they would have moved in together.

Lady Spencer finally realised the significance of the relationship during a phone call with the princess about two weeks before the fatal Paris car crash.

Diana was bursting with enthusiasm about her lover, she said. "She was effusive, very excited about him and incredibly happy.

"She said she had never been so happy for years. She was really blissful and that was the moment when I really thought it was highly likely that she and Dodi could get engaged and married.

"It is very disrespectful to Diana and to Dodi and all concerned to call their relationship just a summer romance.

"In my own humble position it was definitely more than that. It was much deeper, much more profound and much closer.

"They may even have cohabited and lived together if that was the most convenient or appropriate way of going forward."

PREGNANCY CLAIMS

Lady Spencer doubted claims that Diana was pregnant when she died.

Mr Al Fayed claims the princess was killed on the orders of MI6 because she was carrying his son's child.

He claims her body was embalmed on the day of her death - without permission from her family - to hide any signs of the unborn child.

But Lady Spencer said: "Diana was brought up in a quite oldfashioned way. I don't personally believe she would have considered it.

It would have been out of the question for her. But I do not know if she was or not."

The only person in whom Diana might have confided about a pregnancy would have been royal butler Paul Burrell, she told the inquest.

She said he was "terribly close and loyal and wonderful to her. Nothing went on without his knowledge. But I can't be confident that she would have told him everything."

ROYAL FAMILY SNUBS

The jury has already heard repeated claim and counter-claim about how Diana was treated by the Royal Family.

She had told her stepmother the Queen was "always extremely nice to her, which she appreciated very much.

"She told me that Her Majesty had been very nice, and that the Duke of Edinburgh was always very nice to her."

Mr Burnett asked her if she knew there had been suggestions that the Duke had been "far from nice" to the princess.

Lady Spencer said Diana had never mentioned receiving any nasty letters from him.

Later in answer to questions from Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mr Al Fayed, she said she had never seen the Martin Bashir TV interview in which Diana talked about how she was treated by the Royal Family.

But her late husband, the earl, knew a great deal about the Royal Family.

"He had enormous respect and affection for them but he knew how the rules operated, and I don't think Diana did."

Mr Mansfield asked Lady Spencer if she knew that within a month of that TV interview, Diana received a letter from the Queen suggesting a rapid divorce. No, she said, she did not.

The countess added that Diana's sister, Lady Jane Fellowes, refused to see her after her divorce because her husband, Robert, was the Queen's private secretary.

"I felt sorry for Diana," she said. "I think she had probably not realised that once she had divorced, the Royal Family would shut her out."

PROPHETS OF DOOM

The princess had repeatedly expressed fears that some harm would come to her, the jury was told.

Did she ever talk about that to her stepmother?

"She often mentioned accidents," Lady Spencer said. "But mostly helicopter accidents, not car accidents."

In her statement, Mr Burnett reminded her, she had said Diana was "quite obsessed" with the idea.

Why "obsessed"?

"Because she mentioned it so often," she replied. "She felt her telephones were bugged and her house was bugged."

Diana was very interested in horoscopes, Lady Spencer said.

"I am too. I love reading my horoscope. We all want a tall, dark, handsome gentleman to come through the door don't we?

"But there comes a time when, beyond fun, it becomes too believable. There comes a time when you have to make your own decisions and ignore what the soothsayers say. And if they were so good, why did none of them say, 'Beware the Ides of March', as in Shakespeare?

"Why didn't one of them foretell the horror of the accident?"

At least two of them did, Mr Mansfield replied. Lady Spencer said she didn't know that.

Nor did she know at the time that Diana believed so strongly she would come to some harm that she took the matter to her solicitor, Lord Mishcon.

But she did know Diana was extremely nervous about the possibility of an "accident" befalling her.

"She just had very general fears that all was not well, that accidents were all around the corner.

"She said she felt she was being followed, that her calls were being monitored. It was an undisclosed 'they' wanting her out of the way, rather like in some terrible film. She constantly mentioned the soothsayers, which I don't believe in. I'm a Virgo. We're very practical."

SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH
The countess was released by the coroner after none of the other lawyers wanted to question her.

But she hadn't quite finished yet. She adjusted one of her large pearl earrings and asked if she could address the court. Then, turning between the jury and the lawyers, she launched into a eulogy to the court and a plea for the truth.

She thanked everyone involved in the case - coroner, lawyers, jury, legal staff - 'and everyone who has given up so much of their time to try and find out the truth about this matter.

"I do beg you to do your utmost to solve this mystery, to tear aside anything that could be a cover-up and just sift everything possible - and everything indeed impossible - to allow poor Diana and poor Dodi to at last, truly, rest in peace."

THE FAMILY BACKGROUND

Diana's mother and father were Earl Spencer and his wife Frances Shand Kydd, whom he married in 1954.

Born in 1961, Diana was still a child when the couple divorced in 1969 and was devastated by the separation.

Earl Spencer met Raine McCorquodale - Barbara Cartland's daughter - in 1973 and they married in 1976. The Earl died in March 1992 and Raine married a Frenchman, Count Jean-Francois Pineton de Chambrum a year later after a brief courtship. They divorced in 1996.

She still styles herself Lady Spencer and prefers to be known as Raine, Countess Spencer, although she should not strictly be using that title.

Nicknamed "Acid Raine", she was portrayed for years as Diana's 'wicked stepmother', accused of selling off family treasures to fund an expensive refurbishment of their Northamptonshire house. The children blamed her for destroying 500 years of family history and after one family row, the princess pushed Raine down a staircase.

SOAMES DENIES 'ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN' THREAT

Regrets: Nicholas Soames arrives at court
Tory MP Nicholas Soames yesterday dismissed as "grotesque" claims that he made a sinister phone call threatening Diana a few months before she died.

The inquest heard claims that he ordered the princess to end her high-profile campaign against landmines and warned that "accidents do happen".

Simone Simmons, her former confidante, therapist and psychic, has told police investigators that she was in the room and overheard the conversation when Diana took the alleged call from the politician in February 1997.

But Mr Soames, who was then a Defence Minister, told the hearing that the claim was a "fabrication, a fiction and a preposterous and outrageous assertion".

He denied ever having any discussions with Diana about landmines and insisted he was not opposed to her campaign, although his government backed their use by British forces.

However Mr Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill, apologised for describing Diana as being in the "advanced stages of paranoia" following her infamous Panorama interview.

He appeared on Newsnight hours after the 1995 programme to defend his old friend Prince Charles.

Yesterday he said he was "shocked" by some of the claims Diana had made in the interview, including the implication that it would be difficult for the Prince of Wales to succeed as monarch, and the suggestion that she was under surveillance.

He said: "I thought that what she said was way off beam.

"I felt that I should be there to defend someone who was a very old friend.

"But I do regret using the word paranoia and I regret that it caused offence because I was not qualified to make it.

"I am not a doctor. I don't know what the true medical definition of paranoia is."

He said that he and Diana were later reconciled after the princess wrote him an "extremely civil letter", and he liked to think that she did not die as an enemy.

seashrimp

28-12-2007, 07:51 PM

ravenswing

29-12-2007, 09:05 AM

I have always believed Diana was murdered and that she was just a brood mare for the royal family. It is said that Diana's next campaign was to be for the Palastinians, after her success with the land mine issue. I have never believed Harry to be Charles's, you only have to look at James Hewitt

synergy777

29-12-2007, 08:12 PM

dodi and diane would have brought east and west together, the worlds royal couple.

also in this current climate of east v west, they would have brought people together, as for the palestine issue, a very good point. the public would have started to look at it from the palestinians side aswell, unlike today where most of the west is behind israel and the east behind palestine.

i just hope they are together and happy in a peaceful place.

seashrimp

30-12-2007, 03:47 PM

[QUOTE=ravenswing;226048]I have always believed Diana was murdered and that she was just a brood mare for the royal family. It is said that Diana's next campaign was to be for the Palastinians, after her success with the land mine issue. I have never believed Harry to be Charles's, you only have to look at James Hewitt[/QUOTE

There is a likeness but I think Harry takes after Diana's sister, Lady Sarah Mccorquodale. She's a redhead, she and Diana sounded very alike. she happens to be the sister that Prince Charles dated.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_02/DianaDM2208_468x333.jpg

Lady Sarah has a red haired son, i've tried to google for a picture of him but can't find one. He was at Diana's funeral and he and Harry look very alike.

synergy777

18-02-2008, 02:11 AM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8048

Princess Diana 'Could Have Been Killed By MI6'
News Commentary – February 14, 2008

A former MI6 officer told the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, that she could have been murdered by MI6 using a strobe gun to blind her driver.

Richard Tomlinson said he realised that the Secret Intelligence Service may have been responsible for Diana’s death after watching a documentary, which claimed that there had been a bright flash before the Princess's car crashed in a Paris underpass.

He told the inquest how he had attended an MI6 training session in which he was shown a portable strobe light intended temporarily to blind targets in vehicles.

Richard Tomlinson

Mr Tomlinson said he had also seen an MI6 document in 1992 detailing a plan to murder Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb leader, by flashing a strobe light at his chauffeur as he entered a tunnel in Geneva.

It bore an "alarming and very eerie similarity" to the crash that killed the princess, Tomlinson said.

After telling the inquest that "A" was a "very ambitious and diligent" MI6 section sub-head, Tomlinson described how "A" showed him the plan in his office on the 11th floor of Century House, then the headquarters of MI6.

The document gave a justification for murdering Milosevic because of his plans for a greater Serbia and his support for Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader.

The circulation list for the plan included the private secretary to the head of MI6. "There was no doubt in my mind that 'A' was entirely serious about his plan," Mr Tomlinson said.

"He was an ambitious and serious officer who would not risk his career by making such a proposal in jest."

Nicholas Hilliard, counsel to the inquest, said that "A" had revealed there was a document, written in March 1993, about someone else in the Balkans - not Milosevic - and that it was a "contingency plan".

The other figure was not named but among the likeliest targets would have been the warlord known as Arkan.

Mr Tomlinson also suggested that Henri Paul may have been employed from time-to-time by MI6.

When he was reading files on an operation to smuggle weapons out of the Soviet Union he came across details of an unnamed French security officer at the Ritz Hotel who he later concluded was Mr Paul.

"There is no doubt Henri Paul would have been of interest to the intelligence services," Tomlinson said, adding that on occasion MI6 paid people for information or access, including a member of the paparazzi and a barrister.

Mr Tomlinson was recruited by MI6 in 1991 after graduating from Cambridge University with a first-class degree in aeronautical engineering.

What’s interesting here however is the way BBC TV news covered Tomlinson’s appearance at the inquest – or rather didn’t.

After reporting the inquest into Diana’s death nightly for weeks, BBC TV news omitted any coverage of Tomlinson’s testimony on the day of his court appearance.

Other sectors of the mainstream media were no less lax. Tomlinson was elsewhere described as a “renegade spy”: which suitably helped characterise him as shady and untrustworthy.

While the BBC’s web site, which did report his testimony, went of its way its way to subtly disparage it. Under the headline MI6 ‘Diana-style’ plot dismissed, the BBC described how Tomlinson “admits he may have got his facts wrong” and also how “he told the Diana inquest in London he may have got the details confused.”

Richard Tomlinson’s testimony on Princess Diana’s death has been around for nearly nine year now. But this is the first time the BBC has ever reported it and it does so adding comments that cast further doubt on Tomlinson’s credibility. Like the quote below, which featured on BBC Online.

According to the BBC’s Daniela Relph: "Clearly the credibility of Richard Tomlinson has been dented because he doesn't have really the evidence to back up what he told Mohammed al Fayed nine years ago."

Which is like saying circumstantial evidence is inadmissible because it is not material proof. Think about it, because that is what she’s effectively saying.

All of which makes one wonder: if MI6 paid people for information or access would they pay journalists – maybe by providing them with stories or inside information – to put a certain spin on events? Like putting a spin on Tomlinson’s testimony, for instance?

----------------

also the possible use of emp/pulse guns, to knock out electronics, they even alluded to this technology in a episode of spooks.

synergy777

18-02-2008, 02:15 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=515459&in_page_id=1770

Diana Inquest: As Al Fayed finally gets his day in court, can he control his anger - and lust for revenge?

Last updated at 22:59pm on 17th February 2008

This is the moment for which he has been waiting ten long, bitter years. He has prepared carefully, with consummate coaching.

He has assured his advisers he will not lose control, however provocative the questions put to him.

But the stage is set for a barn-storming performance today when Mohamed Al Fayed steps into the witness box at the inquest of Princess Diana and his son, Dodi.

"He's very calm, very collected," says one of his team. "He's looking forward to saying in evidence what he's been saying all these years."

Scathing allegations: Al Fayed wants to reveal the 'truth' about Diana's death

This is the first time a battery of QCs representing those who have been assailed by Al Fayed's hotly repeated accusations of murder and Establishment conspiracy have been on hand to cross-examine him.

Al Fayed, 75, is said not to be nervous. Many will be surprised at this. After all, some of his most scathing and significant accusations have already been shot down due to lack of evidence, and Michael Mansfield, his own QC, has had some awkward - not to say embarrassing - moments in front of the coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker.

Al Fayed steps up to say his piece, having himself painfully heard, sitting in his daily position at the side of Court 73 facing the jury, from witnesses including doctors and Diana's friends, that the Princess was not pregnant, that she was not engaged to Dodi, that she was not in love with Dodi, that she still loved surgeon Hasnat Khan.

He has also heard extracts of letters to Diana from Prince Philip - whom he claims led an Establishment plot to murder the Princess to stop her marrying his Muslim son - that display a caring fondness and to which the Princess replied with personal letters beginning "Dear Pa".

And he must still be feeling the sting of Lord Justice Scott Baker's words to Mansfield after the jury heard a letter written by Al Fayed to Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner who led the inquiry into the episode and concluded the crash was a traffic accident.

Written on Harrods writing paper, from the chairman's office on February 9, 2006, Al Fayed said of his former bodyguards Trevor Rees-Jones, Kez Wingfield and Ben Murrell:

"It is a fact that these men were turned against me by the security services. .. The fact is Trevor Rees-Jones did not lose his memory. He knows exactly what happened between Rue Cambon and the Alma Tunnel.

"He knows the detail which the security services are so anxious to suppress . . ."

The fact is? When Mansfield admitted to the coroner that he was "not in a position to produce any material to support" these assertions - in other words, he hadn't a shred of evidence - he could only take the blows as Lord Justice Scott Baker asked:

"Why haven't they been withdrawn by Mr Al Fayed since February 9, 2006?

"They are very grave allegations, and one would have thought that a man with any decency who was not going to pursue them would have withdrawn them."

Similarly, with the Queen's former

Private Secretary Lord Fellowes, who is married to Diana's elder sister Lady Jane and who, according to Al Fayed, was at the British Embassy in Paris in charge of the deadly proceedings as Diana and Dodi were eliminated by MI6.

Last week Lord Fellowes told the jury where he was on the fateful Paris night - he and his wife had visitors in Norfolk and he spent the evening at "an entertainment" in a church hall listening to the writer Sir John Mortimer. Michael Mansfield was looking at his notes. He did not challenge this.

Mr Al Fayed's theory suffered a further blow yesterday when it emerged that the European Court of Human Rights rejected all his claims about Dodi and Diana. Judges sitting in Strasbourg found no evidence of foul play, instead agreeing that the deaths were caused by a simple road traffic accident.

They said Mr Al Fayed's case, in which he complained the crash victims had been denied the right to life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, was "manifestly ill-founded" and ruled it "inadmissible".

His standing as "a man of decency" already shot through by the coroner, Al Fayed knows that in the witness box he will be asked to explain what lies behind his claims and if he has proof.

He knows his performance, and the impression he makes on the jury, could be crucial to the result. It's unlikely he will repeat his more elaborate accusations, such as his description of Prince Philip as a "racist Nazi".

But anyone anticipating his humiliation under a barrage of facts is likely to be disappointed.

In legal circles they still talk of his performance in the witness box at Neil Hamilton's 1999 libel action over claims that the former Tory MP took cash and gifts in exchange for asking questions in the House of Commons. It is remembered as "brilliant".

When Hamilton's counsel Desmond Browne asked him why he was taking so much cash out of his bank account Al Fayed retorted: "It's my money. What's it got to do with you?"

This time, of course, there will be no jokes. As one of his team says: "This isn't politics, this is personal. His son has died." That is the key factor that ensures there are likely to be deeply emotional exchanges.

For this is a man who is desperate to prove, at the very least, that there was a motive to kill Diana. Afterall, no motive, no murder. If the jury decide Dodi and Diana had accidental deaths, then the focus swings on to Mohamed Al Fayed himself as the man whose own carelessness is why his son and the People's Princess lost their lives.

As Martin Gregory, author of Diana: The Last Days, puts it: "On the night she died Diana was travelling from a Fayed hotel to a Fayed apartment in a Fayed car with a Fayed driver, sitting next to Fayed's son and behind a Fayed bodyguard. Despite this, Fayed has hired enough lawyers to take his family name out of the equation."

Tom Bower, Mohamed's biographer, notes that no one anticipated them coming to The Ritz hotel that night, no one knew about the idea to leave the hotel by the back door, which was hatched by Dodi and approved by his father, and no one knew which route Henri Paul was taking - "so how could any potential killers have the time to make a plan?"

This has never impressed Al Fayed, whose grieving for his eldest child, the only one by his first marriage, is understandable, and whose obsession with the case has drained his personal fortune of at least £10 million.

Al Fayed's life has barely changed on the outside since Dodi's death. Weekdays in London, weekends at his house in Surrey, alternate Saturdays to Craven Cottage for games of struggling Premier League club Fulham, which he owns, occasional visits to his 65,000-acre estate in Scotland, no obvious days off.

"But Dodi's death is always churning inside him," says the family friend. "He can't rid himself of it. It can never die until he does."

It was Al Fayed who fought for an inquest, and for a jury. He and his advisers proclaim this a victory.

But after four months of evidence in which every last intimate detail of poor Diana's life has been prised out for public scrutiny - much of it irrelevant - one is entitled to ask if Mohamed Al Fayed and his legal team, led by "Moneybags" Mansfield, still feel any real satisfaction or justification for this sorry triumph.

Al Fayed is unmoved. "He believes he is doing the right thing," says his friend.

So, would a verdict of accidental death end the matter? Al Fayed's spokesman says: "If all the witnesses are called and all of them tell what they really know, Mr Al Fayed will accept the jury's verdict," he says.

This sounds like Al Fayed-speak for No. For all the witnesses are not being called. They would have to include Prince Philip and the Queen, not to mention Prince Charles, the man put in the frame by Diana's handwritten letter expressing fears that "my husband" was planning an "accident" in her car so he could marry Tiggy.

And former butler Paul Burrell has told the inquest that the Queen warned Burrell about 'powers at work' that could harm him. What powers, he didn't know. Shouldn't the inquest be told?

But neither the Queen nor Prince Philip nor Charles has been summoned to give evidence and the coroner is unlikely to call them. He is expected to explain his reasons before the jury retires to bring in its verdict.

Then there is the absent pathologist Professor Dominique Lecomte, who conducted driver Henri Paul's post-mortem, and Dr Gilbert Pepin, who tested his blood.

Al Fayed still claims that Paul's blood, which showed he was more than three times over the French alcohol limit of 0.5g per litre, was switched in the laboratory and that he was not drunk.

"These doctors are a major factor, but they are refusing to take part," protests one figure close to Al Fayed. "They should be cross-examined."

The doctors' findings will be read out by a French police officer. So why don't they come? They blame Al Fayed because they are both being sued by him in France alleging "false evidence". (He is also sueing the French police for not treating Diana's and Dodi's deaths as "murder".)

A legal source close to Ms Lecomte and Dr Pepin in Paris says: "They are highly experienced professionals who deal in hard facts and have given all the help they can to those investigating these tragic deaths. They are fed up with being drawn into these eccentric conspiracy theories."

Al Fayed is likely to be in the witness box for two days, but there are five more weeks before Lord Justice Scott Baker sends out the jury to consider its verdict.

After that, the man responsible for this tasteless examination of Diana's existence, currently costing the taxpayer £6 million and rising, will have to ask himself: Was it really worth it?

kriss_crow

18-02-2008, 10:52 AM

Hi
Sorry it took so long, my internet was off. Here part of the interview.
Interview with a mother goddess:

DI: “Where do you think the story of Diana fits into all this in terms of the rituals you know about and the Royal family background you talk about? What was that all about, what happened in Paris?”
AW: “Diana was a ritual sacrifice because she’s named after the goddess Diana, she was chosen from before birth for the purpose which she served.

anybody can explain it to me - how car accident may become a ritual sacrifice?
I know they had many reasons to murder her,
but calling it a ritual kill is much far-fetched for me.
[having bohemian groove movie on my mind writing it]

crowd control

18-02-2008, 01:35 PM

How fucked up are these last two shots?

http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/DianaInquest/images/InCar1.jpg

http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/DianaInquest/images/InCar2.jpg

synergy777

18-02-2008, 11:03 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/18/ndiana118.xml

Mohamed Fayed's fury at 'Nazi' Prince Philip
By Nick Allen
Last Updated: 8:37pm GMT 18/02/2008

Mohamed Fayed has accused the Duke of Edinburgh of being a "Nazi" and a "racist" who ordered MI6 to assassinate Diana, Princess of Wales because she was pregnant with a Muslim baby.

In a series of extraordinary allegations at the inquest into the Princess's death, Mr Fayed also accused her former husband, the Prince of Wales, of plotting her "murder" so he could marry his new "crocodile wife" Camilla Parker Bowles.

He said the Royal Family were a "Dracula family" who had murdered the Princess the moment she had found happiness and even implicated Tony Blair, the former prime minister, in the plot.

The Harrods owner told the High Court hearing in London that he had fought a 10-year battle against a vast conspiracy encompassing both the British and French establishments as he tried to prove that the Princess and his son Dodi were killed by MI6, on the orders of the Duke, in a staged car crash in Paris on Aug 31, 1997.

The alleged conspiracy and cover-up included senior royals; MI6; two former Scotland Yard commissioners; French police and medics; the Princess's sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, and several of her close friends, he claimed.

At the centre of Mr Fayed's case was a claim that his son and the Princess telephoned him an hour before the accident to say they were expecting a baby and would announce their engagement after she had told her sons.

Mr Fayed said: "I'm the only person that they told. Princess Diana told me before and during the holiday we shared in July 1997 of her fears. She told me that she knew Prince Philip and Prince Charles were trying to get rid of her."

He went on: "Prince Philip would not accept my son or anyone who is a person of different religion, naturally-tanned, curly hair. They would not accept that he would have anything to do with the future King.

"Prince Philip rules the country behind the scenes. I think Prince Philip is the actual head of the Royal Family. He is a racist. He was brought up by his aunt who married one of Hitler's generals.

"This is the man who is in charge, who is manipulating and can do anything. It's time to send him back to Germany from where he comes. You want to know his original name - it ends in Frankenstein."

Ian Burnett QC, for the coroner, asked Mr Fayed: "All this stems from your belief that Prince Philip is not only a racist but a Nazi as well?" Mr Fayed replied: "That's right."

Prince Philip was originally a member of the Danish-German House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg and Mr Fayed was thought to have been comparing that name with "Frankenstein". The duke later changed his name to Mountbatten.

Mr Burnett said there had been an "avalanche" of evidence from friends of the Princess that she was not pregnant, but Mr Fayed said they were "lying".

He claimed the murder was "executed" by a photographer, James Andanson, who has since died, in a white Fiat Uno and that Mr Andanson was later "got rid of".

He said Mr Andanson was employed by MI6 and "pushed" the couple's Mercedes as strobe lights were flashed to blind their driver Henri Paul, who was also in the pay of MI6 but had been "duped" by them.

After the crash two French pathologists swapped Mr Paul's blood for that of someone else to show he was drunk, he alleged.

Mr Fayed also claimed that Tony Blair, the former premier, was implicated in the plot. He believed the assassins were acting on orders from "the prime minister and his henchmen" as well as the Royal Family.

At one point Lord Justice Scott Baker commented: "A lot of people were involved in the plot."

In a heated exchange Richard Horwell QC, counsel for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, drew laughter as he suggested the conspiracy seemed to involve everyone including "James Andanson and his dog".

He said: "Can you tell us why James Andanson took his dog on this criminal enterprise? Why the might and power of the Royal Family, the British government and MI6 chose a Fiat Uno, one of the world's lightest and least powerful cars?"

Mr Fayed replied: "Well, it's his own car and he chose to use his own car." He added: "You are talking a lot of rubbish. You are trying to protect the Establishment, the intelligence services and Scotland Yard for something they have done - the crime of the century."

He said he was convinced there was a cover-up because of a note written by the Princess's divorce lawyer, Lord Mishcon, following a 1995 meeting in which she said there was a plot to kill her in a staged car crash. The document was locked in a safe at Scotland Yard and only sent to the coroner in 2003.

Mr Fayed said: "I cannot believe that they sat upon such an important note and did not pass it on." The inquest continues.

------------------------

mr fayed i respect him, he tells the truth, he has no fear, he tells the truth about the danish/german origins of the royal family, saxe coburg gotha, he speaks the truth about hitlers connections to the phillip and the royal family, anyone remember edwards abidiciation?

pri01

18-02-2008, 11:23 PM

If media are part of the conspiricary, then how can we believe that the Diana interview was not conspired with?

synergy777

20-02-2008, 02:20 PM

i think people know that al fayed is speaking the truth, but people are scared of the royal family, intelligence agencies and the media.

we live in a semi democracy, fear of the state/elite/monarchy is still widespread.

synergy777

02-04-2008, 12:58 AM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23297&page=2

diana inquest.

kallista

02-04-2008, 09:22 AM

Don't worry. We have Carla Bruni and Angelina Jolie to save us now.

kallista

02-04-2008, 09:36 AM

Here's a member of the cabal creating a conspiracy theory.

By Bertrand Russell

The Minority of One, 6 September 1964, pp. 6-8

This article was published in the September 1964 issue of M.S. Arnoni’s The Minority of One.

The official version of the assassination of President Kennedy has been so riddled with contradictions that it is been abandoned and rewritten no less than three times. Blatant fabrications have received very widespread coverage by the mass media, but denials of these same lies have gone unpublished. Photographs, evidence and affidavits have been doctored out of recognition. Some of the most important aspects of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald have been completely blacked out. Meanwhile, the F.B.I., the police and the Secret Service have tried to silence key witnesses or instruct them what evidence to give. Others involved have disappeared or died in extraordinary circumstances.

It is facts such as these that demand attention, and which the Warren Commission should have regarded as vital. Although I am writing before the publication of the Warren Commission’s report, leaks to the press have made much of its contents predictable. Because of the high office of its members and the fact of its establishment by President Johnson, the Commission has been widely regarded as a body of holy men appointed to pronounce the truth. An impartial examination of the composition and conduct of the Commission suggests quite otherwise.

The Warren Commission has been utterly unrepresentative of the American people. It consisted of two Democrats, Senator Russell of Georgia and Congressman Boggs of Louisiana, both of whose racist views have brought shame on the United States; two Republicans, Senator Cooper of Kentucky and Congressman Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, the latter of whom is a leader of his local Goldwater movement and an associate of the F.B.I.; Allen Dulles, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Mr. McCloy, who has been referred to as the spokesman for the business community. Leadership of the filibuster in the Senate against the Civil Rights Bill prevented Senator Russell from attending hearings during the period. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Earl Warren, who rightly commands respect, was finally persuaded, much against his will, to preside over the Commission, and it was his involvement above all else that helped lend the Commission an aura of legality and authority. Yet many of its members were also members of those very groups which have done so much to distort and suppress the facts about the assassination. Because of their connection with the Government, not one member would have been permitted under U.S. law to serve on a jury had Oswald faced trial. It is small wonder that the Chief Justice himself remarked that the release of some of the Commission’s information “might not be in your lifetime” Here, then, is my first question:Why were all the members of the Warren Commission closely connected with the U.S. Government?

If the composition of the Commission was suspect, its conduct confirmed one’s worst fears. No counsel was permitted to act for Oswald, so that cross-examination was barred. Later, under pressure, the Commission appointed the President of the American Bar Association, Walter Craig, one of the supporters of the Goldwater movement in Arizona, to represent Oswald. To my knowledge, he did not attend hearings, but satisfied himself with representation by observers.

In the name of national security, the Commission’s hearings were held in secret, thereby continuing the policy which has marked the entire course of the case. This prompts my second question: If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security? Indeed, precisely the same question must be put here as was posed in France during the Dreyfus case: If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all its inquiries in the strictest secrecy?

At the outset the Commission appointed six panels through which it would conduct its enquiry. They considered: (1) What did Oswald do on November 22, 1963? (2) What was Oswald’s background? (3) What did Oswald do in the U.S. Marine Corps, and in the Soviet Union? (4) How did Ruby kill Oswald? (5) What is Ruby’s background? (6) What efforts were taken to protect the President on November 22? This raises my fourth question: Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of who killed President Kennedy?

All the evidence given to the Commission has been classified “Top Secret,” including even a request that hearings be held in public. Despite this the Commission itself leaked much of the evidence to the press, though only if the evidence tended to prove Oswald the lone assassin. Thus, Chief Justice Warren held a press conference after Oswald’s wife, Marina, had testified. He said, that she believed her husband was the assassin. Before Oswald’s brother Robert testified, he gained the Commission’s agreement not to comment on what he said. After he had testified for two days, the newspapers were full of stories that “a member of the Commission” had told the press that Robert Oswald had just testified that he believed that his brother was an agent of the Soviet Union. Robert Oswald was outraged by this, and he said that he could not remain silent while lies were told about his testimony. He had never said this and he had never believed it. All that he had told the Commission was that he believed his brother was innocent and was in no way involved in the assassination.

The methods adopted by the Commission have indeed been deplorable, but it is important to challenge the entire role of the Warren Commission. It stated that it would not conduct its own investigation, but rely instead on the existing governmental agencies—the F.B.I., the Secret Service and the Dallas police. Confidence in the Warren Commission thus presupposes confidence in these three institutions. Why have so many liberals abandoned their own responsibility to a Commission whose circumstances they refuse to examine?

It is known that the strictest and most elaborate security precautions ever taken for a President of the United States were ordered for November 22 in Dallas. The city had a reputation for violence and was the home of some of the most extreme right-wing fanatics in America. Mr. and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson had been assailed there in 1960 when he was a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. Adlai Stevenson had been physically attacked when he spoke in the city only a month before Kennedy’s visit. On the morning of November 22, the Dallas Morning News carried a full-page advertisement associating the President with Communism. The city was covered with posters showing the President’s picture and headed “Wanted for Treason.” The Dallas list of subversives comprised 23 names, of which Oswald’s was the first. All of them were followed that day, except Oswald. Why did the authorities follow many persons as potential assassins and fail to observe Oswald’s entry into the book depository building while allegedly carrying a rifle over three feet long?

The President’s route for his drive through Dallas was widely known and was printed in the Dallas Morning News on November 22. At the last minute the Secret Service changed a small part of their plans so that the President left Main Street and turned into Houston and Elm Streets. This alteration took the President past the book depository building from which it is alleged that Oswald shot him. How Oswald is supposed to have known of this change has never been explained.Why was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take him past Oswald’s place of work?

After the assassination and Oswald’s arrest, judgment was pronounced swiftly: Oswald was the assassin, and he had acted alone. No attempt was made to arrest others, no road blocks were set up round the area, and every piece of evidence which tended to incriminate Oswald was announced to the press by the Dallas District Attorney, Mr. Wade. In such a way millions of people were prejudiced against Oswald before there was any opportunity for him to be brought to trial. The first theory announced by the authorities was that the President’s car was in Houston Street, approaching the book depository building, when Oswald opened fire. When available photographs and eyewitnesses had shown this to be quite untrue, the theory was abandoned and a new one formulated which placed the vehicle in its correct position. Meanwhile, however, D.A. Wade had announced that three days after Oswald’s room in Dallas had been searched, a map had been found there on which the book depository building had been circled and dotted lines drawn from the building to a vehicle on Houston Street, showing the alleged bullet trajectory had been planned in advance. After the first theory was proved false, the Associated Press put out the following story on November 27: “Dallas authorities announced today that there never was a map.”

The second theory correctly placed the President’s car on Elm Street, 50 to 75 yards past the book depository, but had to contend with the difficulty that the President was shot from the front, in the throat. How did Oswald manage to shoot the President in the front from behind? The F.B.I. held a series of background briefing sessions for Life magazine, which in its issue of December 6 explained that the President had turned completely round just at the time he was shot. This too, was soon shown to be entirely false. It was denied by several witnesses and films, and the previous issue of Life itself had shown the President looking forward as he was hit. Theory number two was abandoned.

In order to retain the basis of all official thinking, that Oswald was the lone assassin, it now became necessary to construct a third theory with the medical evidence altered to fit it. For the first month no Secret Service agent had ever spoken to the three doctors who had tried to save Kennedy’s life in the Parkland Memorial Hospital. Now two agents spent three hours with the doctors and persuaded them that they were all misinformed: the entrance wound in the President’s throat had been an exit wound, and the bullet had not ranged down towards the lungs. Asked by the press how they could have been so mistaken, Dr. McClelland advanced two reasons: they had not seen the autopsy report—and they had not known that Oswald was behind the President! The autopsy report, they had been told by the Secret Service, showed that Kennedy had been shot from behind. The agents, however, had refused to show the report to the doctors, who were entirely dependent on the word of the Secret Service for this suggestion. The doctors made it clear that they were not permitted to discuss the case. The third theory, with the medical evidence rewritten, remains the basis of the case against Oswald at this moment. Why has the medical evidence concerning the President’s death been altered out of recognition?

Although Oswald is alleged to have shot the President from behind, there are many witnesses who are confident that the shots came from the front. Among them are two reporters from the Forth Worth Star Telegram, four from the Dallas Morning News, and two people who were standing in front of the book depository building itself, the director of the book depository and the vice-president of the firm. It appears that only two people immediately entered the building: the director, Mr. Roy S. Truly, and a Dallas police officer, Seymour Weitzman. Both thought that the shots had come from in front of the President’s vehicle. On first running in that direction, Weitzman was informed by “someone” that he thought the shots had come from the building, so he rushed back there. Truly entered with him in order to assist with his knowledge of the building. Mr. Jesse Curry, the Chief of Police in Dallas, has stated that he was immediately convinced that the shots came from the building. If anyone else believes this, he has been reluctant to say so to date. It is also known that the first bulletin to go out on Dallas police radios stated that “the shots came from a triple overpass in front of the presidential automobile.” In addition, there is the consideration that after the first shot the vehicle was brought almost to a halt by the trained Secret Service driver, an unlikely response if the shots had indeed come from behind. Certainly Mr. Roy Kellerman, who was in charge of the Secret Service operation in Dallas that day, and travelled in the presidential car, looked to the front as the shots were fired. The Secret Service has had all the evidence removed from the car, so it is no longer possible to examine it. What is the evidence to substantiate the allegation that the President was shot from behind?

Photographs taken at the scene of the crime could be most helpful. One young lady standing just to the left of the presidential car as the shots were fired took photographs of the vehicle just before and during the shooting, and was thus able to get into her picture the entire front of the book depository building. Two F.B.I. agents immediately took the film which she took. Why has the F.B.I. refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case?

In this connection it is noteworthy also that it is impossible to obtain the originals of photographs bearing upon the case. When Time magazine published a photograph of Oswald’s arrest—the only one ever seen—the entire background was blacked out for reasons which have never been explained. It is difficult to recall an occasion for so much falsification of photographs as has happened in the Oswald case.

The affidavit by Police Office Weitzman, who entered the book depository building, stated that he found the alleged murder rifle on the sixth floor. (It was first announced that the rifle had been found on the fifth floor, but this was soon altered.) It was a German 7.65 mm. Mauser. Late the following day, the F.B.I. issued its first proclamation. Oswald had purchased in March 1963 an Italian 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. D.A. Wade immediately altered the nationality and size of the weapon to conform to the F.B.I. statement.
Several photographs have been published of the alleged murder weapon. On February 21,Life magazine carried on its cover a picture of “Lee Oswald with the weapons he used to kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippitt [sic].” On page 80, Life explained that the photograph was taken during March or April of 1963. According to the F.B.I., Oswald purchased his pistol in September 1963.The New York Times carried a picture of the alleged murder weapon being taken by police into the Dallas police station. The rifle is quite different. Experts have stated that no rifle resembling the one in the Life picture has even been manufactured. The New York Times also carried the same photograph as Life, but left out the telescopic sights. On March 2, Newsweek used the same photograph but painted in an entirely new rifle. Then on April 13 the Latin American edition of Life carried the same picture on its cover as the U.S. edition had on February 21, but in the same issue on page 18 it had the same picture with the rifle altered. How is it that millions of people have been misled by complete forgeries in the press?

The authorities interrogated Oswald for nearly 48 hours without allowing him to contact a lawyer, despite his repeated requests to do so. The director of the F.B.I. in Dallas was a man with considerable experience. American Civil Liberties Union lawyers were in Dallas requesting to see Oswald and were not allowed to do so. By interrogating Oswald for 48 hours without access to lawyers, the F.B.I. created conditions which made a trial of Oswald more difficult. A confession or evidence obtained from a man held 48 hours in custody is likely to be inadmissible in a U.S. court of law. The F.B.I. director conducted his interrogation in a manner which made the use of material secured in such a fashion worthless to him. This raises the question of whether he expected the trial to take place.

Another falsehood concerning the shooting was a story circulated by the Associated Press on November 23 from Los Angeles. This reported Oswald’s former superior officer in the Marine Corps as saying that Oswald was a crack shot and a hot-head. The story was published widely. Three hours later AP sent out a correction deleting the entire story from Los Angeles. The officer had checked his records and it had turned out that he was talking about another man. He had never known Oswald. To my knowledge the correction has yet to be published by a single major publication.

The Dallas police took a paraffin test on Oswald’s face and hands to try to establish that he had fired a weapon on November 22. The Chief of the Dallas Police, Jesse Curry, announced on November 23 that the result of the test “proves Oswald is the assassin.” The Director of the F.B.I. in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in charge of the investigation stated: “I have seen the paraffin test. The paraffin test proves that Oswald had nitrates and gunpowder on his hands and face. It proves he fired a rifle on November 22.” Not only does this unreliable test not prove any such thing, it was later discovered that the test on Oswald’s face was in fact negative, suggesting that it was unlikely he fired a rifle that day. Why was the result of the paraffin test altered before being announced by the authorities?

Oswald, it will be recalled, was originally arrested and charged with the murder of Patrolman Tippitt [sic]. Tippitt was killed at 1:06 p.m. on November 22 by a man who first engaged him in conversation, then caused him to get out of the stationary police car in which he was sitting and shot him with a pistol Miss Helen L. Markham, who states that she is the sole eye-witness to this crime, gave the Dallas police a description of the assailant. After signing her affidavit, she was instructed by the F.B.I., the Secret Service and many police officers that she was not permitted to discuss the case with anyone. The affidavit’s only description of the killer was that he was a “young white man.” Miss Markham later revealed that the killer had run right up to her and past her, brandishing the pistol, and she repeated the description of the murderer which she had given to the police. He was, she said, “short, a little heavy, and had somewhat bushy hair.” (The police description of Oswald was that he was of average height, or a little taller, was slim and had receding fair hair.) Miss Markham’s affidavit is the entire case against Oswald for the murder of Patrolman Tippitt, yet District Attorney Wade asserted: “We have more evidence to prove Oswald killed Tippit than we have to show he killed the President.” The case against Oswald for the murder of Tippitt, he continued, was an absolutely strong case. Why was the only description of Tippitt’s killer deliberately omitted by the police from the affidavit of the sole eye-witness?

Oswald’s description was broadcast by the Dallas police only 12 minutes after the President was shot. This raises one of the most extraordinary questions ever posed in a murder case: Why was Oswald’s description in connection with the murder of Patrolman Tippitt broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12:43 p.m. on November 22, when Tippitt was not shot until 1:06 p.m.?

According to Mr. Bob Considine, writing in the New York Journal American, there had been another person who had heard the shots that were fired at Tippitt. Warren Reynolds had heard shooting in the street from a nearby room and had rushed to the window to see the murderer run off. Reynolds himself was later shot through the head by a rifleman. A man was arrested for this crime but produced an alibi. His girl-friend, Betty Mooney McDonald, told the police she had been with him at the time Reynolds was shot, according to Mr. Considine. The Dallas police immediately dropped the charges, even before Reynolds had time to recover consciousness, and attempt to identify his assailant. The man at once disappeared, and two days later the police arrested Betty Mooney McDonald on a minor charge and it was announced that she had hanged herself in the police cell. She had been a striptease artist in Jack Ruby’s nightclub, according to Mr. Considine.

Another witness to receive extraordinary treatment in the Oswald case was his wife, Marina. She was taken to the jail while her husband was still alive and shown a rifle by Chief of Police Jesse Curry. Asked if it were Oswald’s, she replied that she believed Oswald had a rifle but that it didn’t look like that. She and her mother-in-law were in great danger following the assassination because of the threat of public revenge on them. At this time they were unable to obtain a single police officer to protect them. Immediately after Oswald was killed, however, the Secret service illegally held both women against their will. After three days they were separated and Marina has never again been accessible to the public. Held in custody for nine weeks and questioned almost daily by the F.B.I. and Secret Service, she finally testified to the Warren Commission and, according to Earl Warren, said that she believed her husband was the assassin. The Chief Justice added that the next day they intended to show Mrs. Oswald the murder weapon and the Commission was fairly confident that she would identify it as her husband’s. The following day it was announced that this had indeed happened. Mrs. Oswald, we are informed, is still in the custody of the Secret Service. To isolate a witness for nine weeks and to subject her to repeated questioning by the Secret Service in this manner is reminiscent of police behavior in other countries, where it is called brainwashing. The only witness produced to show that Oswald carried a rifle before the assassination stated that he saw a brown paper parcel about two feet long in the back seat of Oswald’s car. The rifle which the police “produced” was almost 3½ feet long.How was it possible for Earl Warren to forecast that Marina Oswald’s evidence would be exactly the reverse of what she had previously testified?

After Ruby had killed Oswald, D.A. Wade made a statement about Oswald’s movements following the assassination. He explained that Oswald had taken a bus, but he described the point at which Oswald had entered the vehicle as seven blocks away from the point located by the bus driver in his affidavit. Oswald, Wade continued, then took a taxi driven by a Daryll Click, who had signed an affidavit. An inquiry at the City Transportation Company revealed that no such taxi driver had ever existed in Dallas. Presented with this evidence, Wade altered the driver’s name to William Whaley. The driver’s log book showed that a man answering Oswald’s description had been picked up at 12:30. The President was shot at 12:31. D.A. Wade made no mention of this. Wade has been D.A. in Dallas for 14 years and before that was an F.B.I. agent.How does a District Attorney of Wade’s great experience account for all the extraordinary changes in evidence and testimony which he has announced during the Oswald case?

These are only a few of the questions raised by the official versions of the assassination and by the way in which the entire case against Oswald has been conducted. Sixteen questions are no substitute for a full examination of all the factors in this case, but I hope that they indicate the importance of such an investigation. I am indebted to Mr. Mark Lane, the New York criminal lawyer who was appointed counsel for Oswald by his mother, for much of the information in this article. Mr. Lane’s enquiries, which are continuing, deserve widespread support. A Citizen’s Committee of Inquiry has been established in New York, at Room 422, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York. N.Y. (telephone YU9-6850) for such a purpose, and comparable committees are being set up in Europe.

In Britain, I invited people eminent in the intellectual life of the country to join a “Who Killed Kennedy Committee,” which at the moment of writing consists of the following people: Mr. John Arden, playwright; Mrs. Carolyn Wedgwood Benn, from Cincinnati, wife of Anthony Wedgwood Benn, M.P.; Lord Boyd-Orr, former director-general of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization and a Nobel Peace Prize winner; Mr. John Calder, publisher; Professor William Empsom, Professor of English Literature at Sheffield University; Mr. Victor Golancz, publisher; Mr. Michael Foot, Member of Parliament; Mr. Kingsley Martin, former editor of the New Statesman; Sir Compton Mackenzie, writer; Mr. J.B. Priestley, playwright and author; Sir Herbert Read, art critic; Mr. Tony Richardson, film director; Dr. Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark; Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University; Mr. Kenneth Tynan, Literary Manager of the National Theatre; and myself.

We view the problem with the utmost seriousness. U.S. Embassies have long ago reported to Washington world-wide disbelief in the official charges against Oswald, but this has scarcely been reflected by the American press. No U.S. television program or mass circulation newspaper has challenged the permanent basis of all the allegations—that Oswald was the assassin, and that he acted alone. It is a task which is left to the American people.

synergy777

07-04-2008, 07:12 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557842&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Diana and Dodi killed due to negligent driving of drunk Henri Paul and paparazzi, inquest jury rules

By NICOLA BODEN - More by this author »

Last updated at 17:58pm on 7th April 2008

• Diana and Dodi died due to Paul's 'grossly negligent' driving
• Paparazzi helped cause crash by hot pursuit of Mercedes
• Paul's judgement also impaired because he was drunk
• Fayed dismisses ruling and declares: "It was murder"

Diana was unlawfully killed because of the gross negligence of Henri Paul and the paparazzi, the jury ruled

Diana, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed died because of the "grossly negligent" driving of Henri Paul and the paparazzi following their car, an inquest jury has ruled.

Bringing the mammoth six-month case to an end, the panel ruled the crash was caused by the speed and the way Henri Paul was driving the couple's Mercedes on the night they died as well as the photographers in pursuit.

They also said Paul's judgement was impaired because he had drunk alcohol early in the evening before the group left the Ritz in Paris and that the fact Diana and Dodi were not wearing seat belts contributed to their deaths.

Mohamed Al Fayed stormed from the court with a face of thunder as soon as the brief hearing ended and emerged shortly afterwards onto the court steps to declare he still believed the couple had been murdered.

Asked for his personal response to the verdict, he shrugged his shoulders and said: "The most important thing is it is murder".

The panel decided Henri Paul was 'grossly negligent' in his driving and impaired because of drinking earlier that evening

He claimed that even now the truth about the crash was not known and that the security services had not come forward to say what really happened.

The Harrods boss also claimed the Queen and Prince Philip should have been called to give evidence, declaring: "No one is above the law."

His statement read: "It's been a long fight to uncover the truth about the deaths of my son Dodi and Diana, Princess of Wales.

"I'm not the only person who says they were murdered. Diana predicted she would be murdered and how it would happen. So I am disappointed.

"The verdicts will come as a blow to the many millions of people around the world who supported my struggle. I thank them.

"For 10 years I have endured two police investigations. The French and the Scotland Yard inquiries were wrong. These inquests prove it. They said it was an accident and their findings are now dismissed.

"The jury have found that it wasn't just the paparazzi who caused the crash, but unidentified following vehicles.

"Who they are and what they were doing in Paris is still a mystery.

Mohamed Al Fayed was in court to hear the historic verdict

It continued: "They have established many new relevant facts that were being withheld from the public.

"Contrary to Lord Stevens' report, there's now clear evidence that Diana and Dodi's relationship was serious. It's also clear that Dodi and I were blameless in planning the fatal last journey.

"I thank the jury. I had to fight long and hard for there to be a jury of ordinary men and women, with hearings in public, and they've done their very best in difficult circumstances.

"They didn't hear from all the witnesses. It's shocking to me that French police, senior officials, paparazzi and pathologists refused to give evidence.

"I've always believed that Prince Philip and the Queen hold valuable evidence that only they know. They were not even questioned, but they should have been.

"No one should be above the law. Senior British police officers sat on a crucial note by Diana's lawyer, the Mishcon note, and then lied about their reasons for doing so.

"The MI6 witnesses told us very little. I still believe they really know what really happened.

"Instead, I've had to sit for six months and listen to the coroner's accusations against me and all those witnesses who said it wasn't a simple accident.

"I feel as though my character and belief - that I'm entitled to have as a father - have been on trial.

"Diana and Dodi were taken away at the prime of their life, when they were at their happiest.

"They looked forward to a future together, and I'll always mourn their loss, to me and to the world."

Dodi and Diana had been enjoying a holiday in the south of France before they went on their fatal trip to Paris, where they were both killed in the Pont D'Alma underpass

The tycoon's legal team have not ruled out mounting a legal challenge to the verdict by means of a High Court judicial review.

Michael Cole, press agent for Mr Al Fayed, said: "That is a very difficult route but we are keeping all our options open."

Diana's sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, was also at the hearing but walked straight to her car and made no comment as she left the building.

She ignored members of the public who were clearly al Fayed supporters, shouting: "It is an MI5 cover-up."

In contrast to Mr Al Fayed, former Met Chief Lord Stevens, speaking outside court, urged people to accept the verdict and allow Dodi and Diana to rest in peace.

He said: "I just hope that this can bring closure for what has been a tragic event for a lot of people. Mr Al Fayed has said he will accept the verdict of the jury.

"The jury has been clear. They have said they are absolutely sure there was no conspiracy in relation to this matter.

"I hope everybody can take this verdict as closure to this tragic incident and that the people who died can be allowed to rest in peace."

The panel returned their ruling today less than an hour after being told they did not have to make a unanimous decision on their deaths and on the 93rd day of the court case.

Their surprise unlawful killing verdict went one step further than Lord Stevens' finding in 2006, who ruled the crash was a "tragic accident" and said Paul was drink-driving and speeding when it happened.

It was hoped their decision would finally bring an end to more than a decade of wild conspiracy theories about how the Princess died.

But the unexpected ruling, which was the strongest verdict they could reach, will now only provide further ammunition for those who, like Mr Al Fayed, believe the deaths were not an accident.

The Harrods boss had said while the case was ongoing that he would accept their decision but is clearly determined to cling onto his belief the couple were murdered.

Diana, Dodi and Henri Paul were all killed when the Mercedes crashed into a pillar in the Alma Tunnel in Paris in August 1997. Only Diana's bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones survived.

The jury at the inquest was told paparazzi were in hot pursuit as the car raced from the Ritz Hotel despite a decoy plan to trick and trick the waiting press.

Seven paparazzi were arrested following the crash but were cleared of causing it by the French investigation.

Only one photographer gave evidence in person to the High Court but pictures they had taken in the moments before and after Diana died were shown to the jury.

None of them admitted seeing the Mercedes directly before the crash of being close enough to have any effect on it.

Romuald Rat, who was a passenger on a motorcycle being driven by Stephane Darmon, has admitted that he was one of the "leading pursuers".

Mr Darmon was the only member of the paparazzi group to enter the witness box and said there were three to four motorcycles and maybe two to three scooters and several cars.

They followed, even as the Mercedes "took off like a plane" to escape the chasing pack, Darmon claimed but he said no one had been able to fully keep up with Diana's car.

Rat, in his police statement, had claimed that he moved onlookers away from the car and then went back to open the door after the crash.

But the coroner noted in his summing-up: "That is plainly untrue when you look at the photographs that were taken."

He also dismissed Rat's claim that he only began to take pictures after a doctor arrived, saying: "You know that is not true."

Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker has presided over the historic case
Lord Justice Scott Baker gave the jury a majority direction at 3.30pm today, four days after they retired to deliberate on the case.

He told the 11 jurors he would accept a verdict on which nine of them were agreed after receiving a note saying they could not decide unanimously.

They were asked to retire again and urged to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict, but told the coroner would accept one upon which at least nine were agreed.

He told them: "The time has now been reached when I'm able to accept from you a verdict on which at least nine of you are agreed.

"And that also not only applies to the verdict in each case but also to the various elements of the narratives ... but I'm going to ask you to retire again to continue your deliberations so that if you are able to reach a unanimous verdict, please do so.

"But if you cannot, then I accept a verdict on which nine of you are agreed."

Under a complicated legal arrangement, the jury was asked to consider factors which contributed to the crash and to the deaths of Diana and Dodi in addition to the main verdicts.

These included drink-driving, the role of the paparazzi who followed their Mercedes that night, or a mystery white Fiat Uno which is believed to have collided with the car in the tunnel moments before the crash.

The panel of six men and five women had the difficult task of unravelling 91 days of evidence given over six months about how Diana and Dodi died more than 10 years ago.

They were warned not to speak to anyone about the case, which involved more than 250 witnesses from countries all around the globe.

The inquest made British legal history as the first to hold sessions overseas when it convened in Paris in October so that the jury could see exactly where the couple died.

It has taken the cost of investigating Diana's death beyond £6 million.

Intimate details of Diana and Dodi's private lives were discussed in court in the hope any conspiracy theories about their deaths could be quashed.

Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, took the stand to accuse MI6 and the Duke of Edinburgh of plotting to murder the couple through the crash.

But the coroner ruled that there was no evidence to back up the tycoon's claims and so disallowed any verdict which could point to a murder plot.

In his summing up, he told the panel they were not able to return a verdict which supports any of the murder conspiracy theories which have surrounded the tragedy for ten years.

Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was also discredited during the court case and branded a liar.

synergy777

19-03-2009, 12:59 PM

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10359

Death of a Hero

The life and suspicious death of Paul Vigay

Body found washed ashore in Southsea
20 February 2009 – By Fran Duckett-Pike

Police are investigating after the body of a man was discovered in the sea off Southsea seafront.

The body of 44-year-old Paul Vigay was discovered in the sea at Eastney on Friday morning. Police said Mr Vigay, of Manners Road, Southsea, had been reported missing at 11pm on Thursday night. The body was discovered by a member of the public who was out on the beach walking their dog.

Police were called at 8.10am yesterday to the seafront next to the Royal Marines Museum, in Eastney where the body was found 10 metres from the shoreline. Police cordoned off the area. Police say Mr Vigay's death is not being treated as suspicious.

A Hampshire police spokeswoman said: 'We were called by a member of the public after they saw the body in the water. 'The police, with the help of the coastguard, brought him in.' She added: 'Investigations are under way.' The Portsmouth Coastguard Rescue Team and an inshore lifeboat were on the scene assisting the police.

Local residents said they were shocked to hear about what happened in an area that is usually very quiet. Another resident added: 'I have no idea what has happened. I heard a police siren and I looked out the window and saw the police cars. It was a bit of a surprise - and it's not a nice surprise. I know the police interviewed a couple of dog walkers.'

Undertakers were called to take the body away and a post mortem examination will be carried out to try to establish the circumstances which led to Mr Vigay's death.
www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Body-found-washed-ashore-in.5001144.jp

March 16th 2009: the funeral

There were glowing tributes to the young man who seemed to be everyone’s darling, and these gave no hint of any depression or inner anguish still less despair. He was a happy man. I reckon quite a few of those present doubted whether he had taken his life, but nothing was said. His mother didn’t know of any depression from which he was suffering, and assured me that the day before on Feb 18th some pals of his had found him to be his normal, chirpy self. Later I spoke to a computer-encryption expert who had helped Paul write some programs, and he assured us (I and SP) that various people had found him to be quite OK on Thursday 19th: it was a normal day for him. When, I asked his mother, did the alleged row with Loue take place? In the evening, she replied.

I recommend the words of the poet:

Beautiful Dreamer, is this the end of your story?
Did They come and get you, Bright Eyes?
I’ve known a few suicides, but you weren’t one of them,
No, never. You had that cosmic optimism.
I sprinkled petals on your grave.

Yes, he could swim. No, there was no pier nearby for him to fall off. The seafront was next to the Royal Marines Museum, in Eastney, the pier was over a mile away. A chap who had known Paul for over twenty years, who had been his lodger, told me he did not believe Paul could have taken his life like that, because he was too rational and balanced. He had seen Paul be hardly phased by huge financial-debt problems at times. He recalled that that stretch of pebbly beach had happy memories for Paul, because he had earlier been involved with the BBC filming a ‘Magical Mystery’ tour-type program there (I can’t remember exactly what he told me). People are saying Paul was a bit of a manic-depressive, I asked him, but he rejected that.

14th September 1997
Diana: LOOSE CANNON TERMINATED BY MI6 - The 9th Release
Preface:

I quickly banged out the first version of this File mid-morning, the day Diana died. Although I am a total British republican, I liked and admired her and I shed more than a few tears when I learnt of her death. She shone against the shabby background that is the British Royal Family. She will be sadly missed by millions worldwide.

Yet, there was more to be tearful about. If it was just a tragic accident it will be easier to accept and this his how it is being presented by the World's News, with scapegoated cameramen thrown in. But at this point I don't accept it. This smells too fishy. Too many powerful figures in the British establishment will have their passage eased by her death. It stinks. For the moment - and I will retract if I feel I am wrong - I believe a shadowy plot was afoot to kill Diana. It may well be that she was killed by her Majesty's Secret Service - MI6.

I had no idea that the first quickly assembled post would become an instant internet classic. I have received many fawning emails from all sorts of people - not just paranoid conspiracy types, thanking me for getting this down while the news was still fresh, before Intelligence spin-doctors have time to do their worse.
Others have done the inevitable. They have accused me of being disrespectful, even 'sick'. Some have complained that the World should mourn before probing too far. But I fear that shadowy figures are moulding public opinion into false shapes as you read this. The freshest Media Reports must be monitored to see if they change and mutate over time. This often happens in cases of terrible revelation where the Elite has something to hide or lose.

This 9th release is a fairly major update, although there is much material being prepared for a total re-write. The 'Aftermath' section has been significantly updated. Typos have been removed and points clarified.

David-Charles Hammonds - 14th September 1997
'The 9th release' TAKING ACCOUNT OF NEW INFORMATION

**********************************************

The Motive – DianaMurder.com September 14, 2009
DianaMurder.com is owned and operated by Paul Vigay

People have asked the inevitable. American conspiracy theorists have asked, as they always do, 'is there a conspiracy'? You bet your life there is. Let me fill in you in on how and why MI6 were able to terminate Diana. and why they needed to.

Diana has always been a worry to the British Royal family. She was selected by Buckingham Palace, to be little more than the 'surrogate mother' to Prince Charles' role as constitutional 'stud'. Although she undoubtedly cared for Charles, maybe even loved him, she knew at her marriage that Charles' affections to her were eclipsed by his affections for Camilla Parker-Bowles, a woman of a minor aristocratic family. Camillia is two years older than Charles. A woman of Camilla‘s age would have been in her late thirties at the time that Charles married Diana. A woman more of Charles‘ age would not have had bodily-clock with the same ample mileage left that Diana's did. A marriage was forced between Charles - a man selfishly pre-possessed with becoming King and providing heirs - and Diana, a young bedazzled girl caught in the web of one of the most devious women in Britain - The Queen Of England.

Charles was always far more unpopular with the British people than Diana and he resented this, resented this a lot. Charles was the important one, it was he who was to head the British State, and yet this shy, inarticulate girl was beguiling to to the British people and later the world. From the start of the marriage, Diana knew that she would have to 'make' Charles love her, she knew full-well that he didn't already. She knew he still loved Camillia. 'There were always three of us in our marriage', she said on BBC's Panorama. But throughout this unhappy time, she'd managed to do her job - she'd provided two healthy boys, she'd provided the all-important heirs.

Although the Queen's plan had been an immense success, she couldn't help but be horribly cruel towards Diana. The Princess of Wales was not given ladies in waiting - she was always a pseudo-Royal in the eyes of the Queen. This, understandably, took it's toll on Diana. She descended into bouts of bulimia, became psychologically scarred. Yet, even in her frailty she was being a pain in the arse to the Queen and her darling Charles. She was as popular as ever. While Charles played the grouse-shooting Aristocrat and was alienating the British people from the Monarchy, Diana was transcending such matters and was developing herself into a formidable force. More and more the world saw her as the House of Windsor's Cinderella, who was fighting her way to the ball. Yet, Charles, the envious little creature that he is, could not take pleasure in the asset of Diana. She outshone him and he hated it. He didn't love her, resented her, maybe privately despised her - he really wanted her out of his life. Throughout this time Charles was having a relationship with Camilla. Diana had tried to make him love or even like her. She had failed. She would have to start to live her own life. This she did.....

It was when she began to acknowledge that she had no real future with Charles she inevitably looked for other love-interests. This she found for a time with the swashbuckling Capt. James Hewitt. However, the Establishment, sensing that Diana had given her first two-fingers to the House of Windsor, she was in for trouble. Now not only a target of the Queen, she was now a target of Britain's domestic intelligence agency - MI5. Behind closed doors, the establishment of Aristocratic Elites and related Conservative politicians (up to the moment of her death, Conservative politicians were mounting a venomous assault of words, accusing her of being party-political, 'A loose cannon') decided to launch a campaign to discredit her in the eyes of Britain. The unaccountable, secretive and often down-right evil MI5 were called in to monitor Diana, tap-her phones, dig the dirt. This they did, and their greatest triumph came with the 'Squidgy' tapes (intimate calls between Diana and another male friend, 'Gilby', proving adultery) which were leaked into the press by M15. And yet, British opinion was not as conservative as the growing conspiracy had thought. People were not too bothered, they saw Diana as a victim, they excused the affair, they were more angry that someone had tapped the woman's phone. The establishment plot was failing. The British Monarchy was looking bad, the future King was looking bad, the whole British constitutional system was slowly being viewed with resentment by a larger portion of the population than ever before. Yet through all this Diana was shining, bringing a fairy-tale magic in fleeting moments to AIDs victims, the homeless, the war torn. If the British establishment was showing worrying subsidence cracks, the mythological fairy-tale Diana was certainly not.

Although often emotionally fragile, Diana had shifted from the plain but pretty, slightly gormless young girl into someone now bolstered by a powerful network of friends and colleagues. She was now beginning to play the Queen at her own game. She was getting her own back, fighting deviousness with deviousness. Through her band of advisors she was making Charles look more and more the bad guy. She was also the greatest influence over her two boys and the Queen and Charles found this infuriating. While Charles was seen taking the Princes out for Blood-sports, Diana was trying to give them as many 'ordinary' experiences as she possibly could. Charles encouraged the Princes to look on others as inferiors, while their mother encouraged them to look on others as equals.

Towards her divorce and after she was orchestrating the media to present her as the more favourable of the two. To a large extent, she was succeeding. While she had started out as a constitutional liability, Diana was now actively attacking the constitutional elite. She was threatening to destroy the horrible British constitutional system which had done her so much harm and treated her as merely a slab of meat, an incubator of heirs, a stooge of the House of Windsor.

But not only was Diana now seen to be attacking the Public State, she was now doing something far, far more dangerous - she was attacking the most evil sector of the Private State - the Arms industry. Diana was speaking out against land-mines and calling for a total worldwide ban on their manufacture and sale. This was at a time when the Private state was doing a pretty good job of smothering centrist and left-of-centre calls within the New Labour party for a ban. Here was Diana, stirring it all up, jet-setting around the world, mingling with more ethical world-leaders, getting very good support. She was even able to get Hillary to make Bill reconsider his position on the issue. World-wide Diana was quietly making many enemies. Her actions were particularly upsetting to the Arms Barons in Britain, where lower-tech weaponry such as landmines is a big industrial deal. And of course, Arms Exporters are monitored and aided by secret security services, occasionally in 'legitimate intelligence gathering', most often in the protection of Western puppet-dictatorships, which provide markets for killing machines and provide an excuse for Western Armed Forces to stay tooled-up. Diana had been the target of intelligence attacks before at the hands of Britain's bumbling MI5, now she was to be targeted on a much higher level - she was to cross the path of the world-wide secret government where intelligence agencies, big corporations, Royal Houses, powerful individuals, neo-Chivalraic Orders, and powerful secret societies merge into a blur. The British wing was to act on both worldwide and domestic concerns through the infamous MI6. With Diana's death, Charles and his mother would be set to gain complete control over the Princes, the increasing popularity of Diana over Charles could be curtailed, the British Arms Industry could lance an irritating boil.

Yet Diana was not alone in getting up the nose of the British system. Another individual was up to the same thing - Muhammad Al-Fayed. Al-Fayed is the controller of a huge business network and, like most self-made billionaires, had the attitude 'Well, I've made it! Up yours!'. The darling of Margaret Thatcher, Al-Fayed epitomised the right-libertarian philosophy - do what you you like and tread on as many toes as you like in the pursuit of wealth. This type of attitude leads to an ethical vacuum, nothing is a barrier to making money. Al-Fayed was soon slipping bungs to high-ranking Tory Party figures such as Neil Hamiliton and Jonathon Aitkin and countless others proven and unproven. This Egyptian fellow was happily undermining democracy in Britain. When news of the bribes broke, Al-Fayed was only to happy to own up and was willing to expose many others as bribe-takers. These 'sleaze' incidents were further nails in the coffin of the Establishment's political place-men, The Conservative Party, who were to lose heavily at the next election (although, the establishment, devious as ever, had infiltrated Bilgerburger Tony Blair's new right-wing Labour party as a contingency measure). This was an Egyptian citizen who had power to destroy a British Government. The once ally of the British establishment was now it's victorious enemy.

Al-Fayed, in his former days as establishment darling, had struck up an association with Diana. This was very much renewed after Labour won the election and Diana and her Sons took a holiday with Al-fayed on his substantial yacht. This was really rubbing the establishment's nose in it! It was saying, 'I've undermined you, now I've taken your country's most prized woman. The heir to your throne sees me as an Uncle'. Al-Fayed encouraged his playboy son, Dodi, to strike up relations with the Princess and soon there was a much publicised romance.

It had now gone too far for the establishment. Diana had undermined the British constitutional system and was threatening a key industry, and, to top it all, this Johnny Foreigner had made them look like fools. Not only this, a possible Al-Fayed half-brother to the Heir would have been just too unsettling for the Establishment. Diana had to be terminated. If they could get Al-Fayed too, so much the better.

And so all MI6 needed to do was pick it's moment. Diana's Merc may well have been tampered with in some way to ensure she is killed (stunt teams alter the structure of cars all the time). The Merc leaves the Ritz hotel at *high speed*, before any Papperazzi follow. It's just after midnight - a fair few people about on a Paris night, but too many as it's quite late. The paperazzi 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 papperazzi follow on hair-dryer motorcycles but do to adversely interfere with the car. The Merc enters tunnel with little or no traffic. There are few possible witnesses about - the dark tunnel provides good cover. The Motorcycles follow behind, not causing too much trouble. Possibly, a 'British Agent' (either Bees-Jones or an external obstuctor) 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. Paperazzi on bike are rounded up by French Police. Ambulance is somewhat late. Only a few witnesses. Information implicating paperazzi is disseminated by British intelligence through the BBC. Paperazzi are possible witnesses to some of the the actual events. Their film-roles are taken from them.

MI6, I believe, accomplish mission...

The Aftermath

In the first section I outlined why it is unlikely that this was just your random car crash. I gave a brief outline of the politics of Diana's interactions with the British and World Establishments. The next sections explain the course of of the conspiracy as new information - and more importantly, disinformation - become available to the world.

The 'Bodyguard'

A major anomaly was the BBC's treatment of the surviving passenger, initially described as 'British Special Branch', and called Trevor Rees-Jones. This information 'came from French Police' and was reported mid-morning on the Sunday. It is likely that French police found an identity badge of some sort on Trevor-Rees Jones' person, although this is speculation. A little later, the same day BBC announce that Scotland Yard deny that he works for them. Was he posing as Scotland Yard, but working for a much higher agency? The BBC later announce he's an Al-Fayed 'security man' or 'body-guard', and some report him as Diana's 'bodyguard'. Later announcements, (11.00 Sept. 1st) described Rees-Jones as a 29 year old ex-Soldier. We are given no description of his rank or regiment. Is he an ex-Officer? SAS? The television news does not tell us. Is he someone who might be recruited by MI6? My American contacts tell me that some earlier reports describe him as 'ex-Special-Branch' rather than an ex-soldier. An email respondent made me aware of a unit called 'Army Special Branch' which as well as accounting for some of the confusions, would also reinforce the idea Rees-Jones as a potential MI6 recruit. Remember, he's only 29 - are we to believe he's been a soldier of some sort, a member of Scotland Yard's Special Branch and a top Al-Fayed security man?

Several British Newspapers have given more of the background of Trevor Rees-Jones. If we are to believe these reports we can construct the following picture of the man. Rees-Jones served in the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment from 1987 until 1992. He had served in the Gulf and in Northern Ireland, reaching the Army rank of Lance-Corporal until his retirement in 1992. An email respondent suggested that I check this information in a volume called ‘The Army List‘ available in large reference libraries. This I haven't had time to do, but at the moment I'll run with the information from the newspapers. Again, this tends to support the idea of Rees-Jones as someone who may have been chosen to infiltrate the Al-Fayed security team.

Early reports of Rees-Jones' condition conflict markedly to what is being said now. Early reports state that 'the front seat passenger' is 'in no danger'. One of his family was shown on BBC in a calm, relieved state. Later reports state he is 'critical' and in 'intensive care'. At this point, it seems as if he may not, officially, be in a fit state to talk. Again, we might not necessarily be being given the true state of play regarding the man's condition. My guess is he's maybe talking already and British intelligence are deciding how to handle what he's saying. Maybe he's more cut-up than expected? Maybe he'll want to blow the whistle, blow the whole evil operation. Maybe he is genuinely not a 'British Agent', maybe he's just a victim who knows a truth more terrible than the 'truth' the Big Media is feeding us. I have by no means ruled out that Trevor Rees Jones is a British Agent who has earlier infiltrated the Al-Fayed security set-up ready for when 'the time comes'.

A curious nugget of information surfaced in the Britain's centrist Observer newspaper on the 7th September 1997. We had been led to believe that Rees-Jones was in an absolutely desperate condition He had suffered severe facial injuries, had been Brain damaged and his tongue had been severed. In fact, it would seem that anything that might have prevented him from speaking has indeed happened to him. According to the Observer, 'a source close to the family' had revealed that Rees-Jones said he was feeling 'guilty about the tragedy, but he says he could not have prevented the tragedy'. According to this 'close family source' Rees-Jones gave these utterances in a period of consciousness. This alleged utterance was given to his mother and stepfather just a day after the crash. Furthermore, Rees-Jones said he felt close to the Princess and Dodi and was devastated by their deaths. If true, and I believe this is information which has 'slipped through the net' it would seem that Rees-Jones is not half as badly injured as the world has been being conditioned to think. Obviously, we have to ask if Rees-Jones could speak all this to his family, why are the French Magistrates who are supposedly leading the operation almost seeming to want Rees-Jones to lie silent for as long as possible. It's as if they don't want his testimony, as if they don't want to hear any contradictory revelation until they've massaged and moulded their own version of the truth. On 12th September 1997, the popular Mirror newspaper was spewing out this false propaganda with a front page article claiming that Rees-Jones 'hasn't been told of the deaths'. This is obviously complete nonsense.

Look out for a freak relapse.

Also of interest in the Observer article was the description of Trevor Rees-Jones as 'secretive'. According to the Observer, Rees-Jones joined the Al-Fayed security set-up after leaving the Parachute Regiment and, interestingly, 'the elite Royal Protection Squad'. His grandmother, Mrs. Sarah Ann Rees was quoted in the article as saying, 'We didn't know anything about his jobs, although I've had a lot to do with him as we are a close family. We knew he was a bodyguard, but we didn't know who he worked for. It was no good asking him about anything he didn't want to tell you. On Monday Trevor's stepfather rang me and told me Trevor was going to live and make it back as he was - as Trevor.'. This rather confirms many of my initial feelings. Of course, secret service are encouraged to maintain secrecy surrounding their employment.

Leaving the Ritz Hotel

A man from Britain's Daily Express paper described, early on the Sunday, that the press outside the Ritz Hotel was calm. Diana smiles at camera calmly gets into car. The car speeds off before Papperazzi apparently follow on motorcycles. This revelation has only been heard once on the BBC. The Big Media story is that Diana and Dodi were to exit at the front door, saw the mob of papperazzi and sneaked out the 'back way' into the Mercedes-Benz. Apparently, we are to believe that Henri Paul was beckoned by someone to 'be the Driver'. Although Paul is also one of Al-Fayed's security team we are being led to believe he's little more than some sort of drugged-up, drunken, unqualified Ritz 'bell-boy'.

Of course, the shock revelation came that he was Three-times over the French Drink-drive limit, two times the British limit. This has opened up a can of worms. People who knew Paul, are now coming forward to say he wasn't the sort of drink much, and that that he often refused to drive if he had had even a small amount to drink. His family and the Fayed's demanded a second blood test, which unsurprisingly confirmed the earlier tests and also revealed that Henri Paul was also using Prozac. One French Doctor quoted in the Independent on Sunday 7th September 1997 suggested that the picture being given of Paul is that of a man on the edge, hardly someone able to keep down an important job at one of the Worlds Top Hotels.

Why did the car speed away from the Ritz when the Papperazzi were being fairly restrained? Were the Papperazzi such a big deal? What scraps of treasure would fall through the Merc's blacked-out windows? Why the need for high speed? Wouldn't the Papperazzi have dispersed when it became clear that there was no pictures on offer? It's now becoming clear that a drunken Paul who taunts the papperazzi and then drives off at 100mph with such important people in his care is completely untenable. What did Trevor Rees-Jones think about this 'drunk' getting in to drive? Was he plastered too? There are gaping holes in the whole episode, it's too unlikely. Something is badly wrong.

It may well be - in fact it is highly likely - that Henri Paul‘s blood-sample has been tampered with so as to give the impression that he was drunk and drugged-up on anti-depressants. If MI6 could discredit Paul, and lay much of the blame for the accident at the door of Muhammad Al-Fayed, then this may smother Al-Fayed‘s own investigations. The last thing MI6 want is for another investigation to undermine their own carefully constructed truth‘. If the Al-Fayeds, with all their private resources, are to launch a major private inquiry into what happened this could well present a problem for the establishment plot? Would Al-Fayed punish them one more time? Well, there's already a big Media campaign to implicate the Ritz and Al-Fayed, as well as a campaign to undermine his key spokesman, Michael Cole.

The Papperazzi

Although the papperazzi is being blamed world-wide, it was nearly two days after the event that the papperazzi were charged with anything. At the time I wondered, 'Are they looking for their Lee Harvey Oswald?'. Now this has been blown out of the water - it's gone totally surreal. They've charged the whole seven of them with Manslaughter! One of the seven isn't even a papperazzi - he's just a motorcycle courier on his way home. Another of of the seven told the BBC that he feels as if he's 'fallen into a net'. Of course, those accused of a crime, say all kinds of things, whether guilty or innocent. But it's a curious thing for him to have said, 'fallen into a net'. What have the 'French Police' done to these wretches?

Well, perhaps someone in the French Police force is feeling very guilty about what's been going on behind those closed doors. On Tuesday night Sept. 2nd a Police report was leaked accusing the seven of the most appalling things - obstructing the emergency services for one. Is the Policeman responsible for this leak guilty that his colleagues are taking part in a set-up, and so wants to undermine the trial by leaking documents? A French Policeman claims that these papperazzi pushed him out of the way as he tried to assist the victims. Yet, this conflicts greatly with the testimony of the French Doctor who was on the scene within minutes of the crash. He said that although there were men with cameras there, they caused no obstruction to him in his work. Is the Policeman a manufactured witness‘?

It now also transpires that these papperazzis were riding what can be classed as little more than hair-dryers‘, rather than higher-speed sports bikes. They wouldn‘t touch a Mercedes-Banz tearing away at 100mph+.

It seems as if the whole case against the paperazzi is a nonsense. The manslaughter charges are a complete joke, whether Paul was drunk or not. The Magistrates' investigation is now centered on discrediting Henri Paul. This is an understandable position. After, all the dead can't be heard to complain.

The Witnesses

We have already mentioned the witnesses of the papperazzi, the French Doctor, and the French policeman.

Other key witnesses we are being told about are those who have claimed to see the crash or the events surrounding it‘s immediate aftermath. Bizzarrely, these are almost completely made up of American tourists! It would be easy, but sloppy, to suggest that the CIA had lent their British cousins a few spooks for the afternoon, but it does merit bearing in mind. This evil incident was a immaculately organised affair - anything is possible. One American family described the Papperazzi swarming over the car talking pictures‘, but did not see the papperazzi cause‘ the crash.

There is major conflicting testimony emerging from some witnesses. Many people saw the Mercedes car travelling at 90, 100, 120mph. Yet, police are interviewing someone who claims to have seen a Motorcycle 'zig-zagging' in front of the car. Zig-zagging at 90, 100mph on a hair-dryer‘ motorcycle? Come on! Well, it seems as if this early witness was again completely spurious, one Francois Levi who telephoned the Reuters News agency with this information. Although I initially wondered that Levi may have been a witness to the 'hit', it seems he's either an MI6, 'manufactured witness' created to confuse the Media, or else is some lone nut trying to 'help' by implicating the paperazzi.

Very early reports quoted witnesses as seeing/hearing an explosion, rather like a terrorist attack. Several w witnesses that were in the proximity of the tunnel just before the crash said they heard two distinct explosions, the first being louder than the second. An American email respondent, echoing many others, spoke of an American woman who was unable but to repeat the word 'explosion' almost as if searching for a different word, trying to say 'crashing' but aware of the dishonesty in saying so. In frustration, she again said 'explosions'. Many people saw this America Couple on CNN, and it was reported the day-after the crash on ITV's Teletext Service but this testimony was not heard again - ever. According to my Email respondent, it was reported in a local North Californian Newspaper that the couple's is home in San Diego and that it seems as if no one wants to talk to them about their sensational experience.

The 'CNN witnesses' also said that immediately after the event some people were around the car and that one man in a three piece suit screamed at them in French and that there was 'liquid on the ground'. Understandably, the witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Furthermore, it seems as if three men in Paris for one guys birthday were on the same road and saw the same men around the car and the same man in a three piece suit screaming in French.

A great many people have emailed me asking why I neglected to mention the Americans seen on CNN in very early reports who described someone leaving the tunnel telling them to 'get back' only moments after the actual crash. I haven't mentioned this until now because I was unable to verify it at the time, but I'm now convinced that many saw these witnesses on CNN, so I'm now running with it. Of course, if there was some in the tunnel just moments after the crash, clearing away witnesses, he's almost certainly part of the assassination, an MI6 agent.

It is interesting to note that a few days after the incident the French police were said to be looking for a smaller, darkly coloured seen car leaving the tunnel by several witnesses. It now seems they have completely abandoned this line of enquiry. Of course, it may well be that this car and the 'man shouting in French' are connected. It is likely that the French police are well aware now of the suspicious nature of this crash, and their superiors and French Intelligence are involved in high-level clandestine meetings with the British Government and/or MI6. I mean, what does the 'Officer in charge' do when confronted with the terrible truth? He must think to himself, 'Christ! The bloody roast-beef have bumped off their Princess. How the hell do I handle this one?'. It would seems as if there maybe a conflict between the rank-and-file Police officers and 'higher-forces'. It's obvious that certain sections of the police are trying to get to something near the truth. On 13th September 1997 there is to be a 'reconstruction' of events for example, although sadly this may to be window-dressing, another attempt to present a false truth. Who can say? If it is indeed true that this was an MI6 termination than the British Government would sooner cover it up than have to admit that they have no control over British intelligence, even if they are privately appalled. And imagine those millions of mourners in Great Britain - they'd be a minor revolution if the truth became widely known.

Diana Injury Anomaly

It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was injured, but that her life wasn‘t threatened. The French Doctor treated her for some time at the scene before an Ambulance took her to the French Hospital. The crash occurred at just past midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4am. I‘m not sure what to make of this.

There is now question as to what hospital Diana would be taken to. Someone has said she would have been quicker treated taken to an American hospital. I have not been able to verify this at this point.

Many respondents, world-wide, have told me that early interviews with the French doctor - Frederic Mailliez - on the scene say he saw the Princess 'thrashing about', 'groaning and moaning' and that her condition 'did not seem desperate', while other reports describe her motionless with her head on her shoulder. Thrashing about? If she was this could have been for all sorts of reasons, but did the agent who caused the crash, inject her with something - just to make sure? Was it the 'man shouting in French' the man who cleared the 'CNN couple' from the area? Also, Al-Fayed claims that in hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person in England following the crash, so obviously she was fairly conscious for a time. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it implicate someone perhaps?

Incredibly, there is no mention whatever of a Diana post-mortem. And of course, the body was taken straight back to the UK and is now firmly buried in the ground.

The Establishment React

For me - although some would cry too subjective‘ - the reaction of British Political leaders is telling. Bilderberger Blair of New Labour and Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal Democrats both looked and sounded genuinely upset, Blair's voice cracking with emotion. William Hague, the Conservative Leader, seemed unmoved, unaffected, disinterested, trying to sound concerned but failing. Did Hague suspect what was going to happen to Diana? Are the Conservative old guard privately relieved that the 'loose cannon' has been finally silenced? Has Mr. Soames shown his face in public?

The Queen's reaction is telling, seeming to lend support my initial claims. The Queen seems to have adopted the most insidious of 'life goes on' attitudes. The Union Jack over Buckingham Palace was not lowered to half mast, unlike most other British institutional buildings. The boys were taken, as per, to Church by the Queen as if nothing had happened, exposing the grieving Princes to minor public attention. It was reported on the Channel 4 News that Diana was first placed in a small private morgue rather than a Royal palace, not because it was standard procedure in a Royal death abroad as the spin-doctored reports had stated, but because the Queen was so scathing about Diana that no-way did she want 'her' placed in one of her buildings. According to the Channel 4 report, it was largely due to public outcry and the pleading of Charles that she was eventually moved to a Royal Building. The Queen obviously did not want the People's Princess to get a Royal funeral in any shape or form. And of course, it was the Queen who was instrumental in removing HRH from Diana's title. The Queen is now being to subjected to a barrage of public outpouring. She is having to shift ground fast. She was forced to give a completely stale address the Nation on Friday evening before the funeral - this is unprecedented to see the head of state being buffeted on the waves of public outcry. Has the whole mess got too big for the House of Windsor?

What of the Papperazzi films?

It was revealed that a day later, the 'French Police' (who we are being led to believe is leading this investigation) decide to develop the photos apparently taken by the papperazzi on motorcycles. If any photographs exist they will have been developed straight away and are now being vetted. Telling photos may well be removed by MI6.

How can we know what is true and what is not?

People have been asking me 'how' I know the media is moulding and remoulding the truth to some covert plan? People are so trusting of these 'respectable' institutions like CNN or the BBC. But Britons - look how the BBC presented a completely skewed image of the Falkland‘s War, the Gulf War, the Minor's Strike, the Poll Tax riots, the Criminal Justice Act riots, or the Sea Empress disaster in a way which was far from what actually happened. This is not by journalistic chance or quirk. And Americans - see how the Big Media massaged and remoulded the News of the 'Blacks/Syphilis' scandal and the 'CIA/Drugs' scandal through different news bulletins.

Look at the Media with any possibility in your mind, not just the one they want to furtively push into your mind. The First Report is often the least doctored, the least massaged.

What has Col. Gaddafi got to do with it?

The BBC went out of their way on September 3rd 1997 to mention the comments of Col. Gaddafi of Libya. The Dictator claims, along with many Arab nations that Diana and Dodi were killed by British and French Intelligence. Although it is easy to call this a Dictator‘s propaganda‘, we must bear in mind that British Intelligence have been all over Libya, Gaddafi would know much about how they operate.

But, more importantly, why the hell did the BBC bother telling the Nation about the comments of an Arab who hasn‘t been in the British News for ages? I say it is do undermine Westerners who are close to the truth. For example, at the start of the Vietnam War, every self-respecting right-wing American was anti sending American Boys out there to fight for a load of Gooks‘ thousands of miles away. But of course, when being anti-war became associated with left-wing subversives‘, Joe Reactionary had to be seen to support the war, helping to prolong the American losses.

The same sort of currents are operating here. MI6 want to paint Intelligence Job‘ theorists as being in league with the Arabs! Magic eh?

Mr. and Mrs. Dodi Fayed

Rumours abound in the UK, that Al-Fayed was to help Diana set-up a Charitable Foundation, which obviously would be seen to be strengthening their bond. Other rumours suggested she was to retire from Public life in the Winter, possibly marrying Dodi.

The marriage rumours are now near fact. A close friend of Dodi told a British Arabic newspaper that the couple did indeed intend to marry this year. Also, Diana and Dodi had visited a top Paris jeweller on the fateful day - a £130,000 ring was purchased. This must surly be an engagement ring. Dodi told the jeweller how much he was in love with the Princess. If Establishment moles had discovered that a wedding announcement was imminent, they would have had to act immediately. If she was topped after this announcement, too many people would be suspicious. They could not allow this announcement - no way, not no how.

Ok, just how do you suppose MI6 set this up?

People have asked me, quite reasonably, 'Why did MI6 top her in such a built up area? Why did they not kill her by a more definite method?' Well, if they'd gone for the 'mad gunman' acting alone, the schizoid lunge in the street, the car crash in the isolated country lane, the 'suicide' then the whole world would be screaming, 'MI6! MI6! MI6!' No, that would be far too obvious. It had to look like a believable random accident.

It is now clear that no one bar two, and I'll repeat that, NO ONE bar two, can claim to have been a witness to the actual crash, not even the famed, 'American Tourists'. The Papperazzi, the French police now have to admit, did not appear on the seen until a short time later. NONE of the Papperazzi saw the crash! NONE of the pedestrian witnesses saw the crash. Trevor Rees-Jones is the one of two people alive who likely saw what happened. Trevor Rees-Jones, I now believe, will suffer a relapse and die, or he'll be too cabbaged to divulge any facts. I'd like to see exactly what's going on in that hospital room, exactly what's going into that man's drip.

I haven't discounted that Trevor Rees-Jones was in on it in some way.

If MI6 couldn't have run them off the road under the bridge, no doubt there would have been a crash somewhere else.

Henri Paul

If anyone is truly squirming in their graves at this time, it's Henri Paul, until his death the Deputy head of security at the Ritz and the driver on the night of the assassination. The news media's treatment of this poor fellow is getting to be blackly comic. It's got to the stage that it seems there wasn't a man in France less suitable to have driven Dodi and Diana on that night. Not only have we been given the impression of Paul as a hopeless alcoholic, but also a man not qualified to drive a limo and a man hooked on Prozac. One French doctor quoted in the Times 11th September 1997, suggested the level of intoxication apparently riddling Paul's body paints a picture of a man on the edge, a man in the final desperate throws of life, someone in need of institutional care. And yet, this man not only keeps down an important job at the Ritz but is unfeasibly able to mask his problems from his workmates, the Ritz security cameras and Trevor Rees-Jones who we are led to believe is Dodi's shadow. This just does not add up.

It seems as if the case against the chasing paperazzi was always going to be weak and was always going to crumble. It seems as if the drunk driver was a contingency measure which has now risen to become the focal point of the cover-up's false truth. The initial blood tests on Paul were surprisingly late, coming nearly 3 days after the crash. And, remarkably, the third blood-test as demanded by Paul's family and the Fayed's was nearly five days incoming. This smacks of behind the scenes scheming. It's as if the police and whoever are truly controlling them are plotting away as to how to proceed. They are deciding how to fake evidence, how to present evidence, what to reveal, what not to reveal. It seems that the cover-up fears the Al-Fayeds and any independent investigation they may instigate. By thoroughly discrediting Paul, MI6 are laying much of the blame on Al-Fayed. In fact, there is even talk of prosecuting the Ritz! Al-Fayed is not a stupid man. He must know everything is skewed. He's trying to get to grips with the situation, trying to plan his next move. He must know the whole weight of secret government is against him. I'm no natural fan of the Rich, 'self-made' or otherwise, but I dearly hope Al-Fayed can stick one on them, shame them to Hell.

The Evil of the Intelligence Agencies

Some of you have had difficulty with the idea of Western Intelligence Services committing such an appalling act of terrorism. It's as if most of us have some child-like ideas of heroic James Bonds protecting us from evil empires and marauding 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' or some other manufactured threat. Some have tried to tell me that our good old MI6 boys aren't like those mind-controlling drugs-dealing CIA goons. Well, I tell you never is the phrase 'our American cousins' so fondly used as between these agencies.

The way many view it, it's as if MI6 are good old cuddly Brits keeping us all safe, saving the day for freedom and democracy, and we should be grateful. It as if were meant to be grateful that 'the powers that be' have selected us for 'freedom' rather and 'dictatorship'. That's rather like the Slave who's grateful for receiving ten lashings rather than twenty at the hands of his Feudal master.

Sure, there's a real role whereby intelligence agencies are engaged in what we might call 'legitimate' activities, but there is a whole other layer that you'll seldom if ever read about in your 'popular memoirs'. There's a whole upper echelon that won't be read in your 'Spycatcher' or your 'Inside Intelligence'.

If anyone has any glowing notions of western Intelligence than they need only remember Yvonne Fletcher, a young policewoman slaughtered in the prime of her life, not by stray bullets from the London's Libyan Embassy as we had been told, but by an unknown gunman linked to American and British intelligence. These revelations quietly slipped onto British Television screens in a Channel 4 Dispatches expose, and prompted a Commons debate of which nothing much came (those interested in the Yvonne Fletcher killing should look out for a police report said by Home Secretary Jack Straw to be appearing at the end of September 1997). Is this to be the true legacy of the Diana assassination, an obscure TV documentary twenty years later? Let's hope not.

Of course, British intelligence has harassed Diana for many years before they actually killed her. This was most apparent when MI5 were exposed as the originators of the so-called 'Squidgygate tapes', with revealed intimate phone-calls between Diana and her lover. But it doesn't stop there by any means.

It is highly likely that Diana's one-time bodyguard and illicit lover Barry Mannakee, who died a few years back in a 'motorcycle accident', was an MI5 termination. In a fit of grief Diana stated so herself, believing MI5 to be the perpetrators although she was later to 'calm down' and retract. It stands as a testament to Diana's immense strength that she was able to withstand the Intelligence barrage for as long as she did, so much so, that they finally had to physically kill her to remove the 'Diana problem'.

It was interesting to note that the Daily Mail on 6th September 1997 mentioned that Diana's ex-lover James Hewitt had deposited his collection of love-letters in a bank vault lest the should be seized by the 'security services'.

Who gave the nod?

I am aware that in earlier version of this document, there I presented little in the way of evidence to link the Assassination specifically to MI6. Well, let's try and discover who has targeted Diana in the past and who might have the wherewithal to pull the killing off.

Many, including myself, argued that the calm, disinterested way in which the Tory leader, William Hague reacted to Diana's death was the reaction of a man unsuprised by the events, a man who was expecting the news. Of course, this is speculative, and might point more to the cold unfeeling otherness need to lead such a horrible bunch of political has-beens. Yet, as has been demonstrated in British politics 60s, 70s, 80s right up until the recent revelations concerning MI5's files on prominent New Labour figures the security do not work for the British Government, the British people, but for the British Establishment. All major Labour politicians have been monitored, bugged, harassed and surveyed by the Intelligence Services, sometimes inducing paranoia as in the case of Harold Wilson. No, it's clear that British Intelligence is a purely right-wing organisation, often functioning as a Tory shadow Government when public psychology can no longer be moulded and Labour come briefly into power. Of course, this has been clouded somewhat with the current Labour government, a government in many ways as far to the right as the Conservatives. This turnabout came when an up-and-coming young centrist Labour politician was invited to join the notorious Bilderberg Group, for many a linchpin of the so-called 'New World Order'. Is it just coincidence that just a few years after Tony Blair's initiation into Bilderberg, he had turned a social democratic party who were always going to overturn the Tories into a Tory Party MkII, thus easing the British Establishment's passage? Ok, so the British Establishment had lost a Party who would better preserve peripheral aspects of the British constitution like highly centralised government, hereditary peers etc., but at least they had a Labour leader as committed to ultra-liberal economics, slashing social provision and retaining major Constitutional institutions as the Tories. Although the British Establishment wouldn't have quite the same direct control over government, they could rest assured that Tony Blair is a pro-Europe Conservative. It's kind of like the Old World Order trusting the New.

I'm not particularly happy with the term 'New World Order'. Although there is a growing consensus as to what it actually means. For American Militia types, it's the surrender of the American Constitution to one drawn up by the UN, for Moslems it's the domination of America over their lands, for the left it's the rise of corporate-fascism, there are countless definitions. For I simply see the New World Order as just another manifestation of the Old World Order which has always run the affairs of the world to their own ends via countless mutations. There may be some world-wide move to replace the current organised world chaos with a system ruthlessly enforced to run like clockwork. Either way, it's the politics of the same kind of 'World-wide government' which has ruled down the ages through Royal Bloodlines, Chivilriac Orders, Organised Religions which has muted into Business Groups, High-Finance, Intelligence agencies, Big Media and the Bilderberg-type powergroups. I don't see why we should expect the 'New World Order' to suddenly initiate a 'take over' when they successfully managed that centuries ago and have been ruling ever since.

What I am leading to is whether Diana was killed on purely domestic orders, or whether she was killed by the larger hidden 'World Government', something like Dr. John Cole's 'Commitee of 300'. Well, we could fantasise that George Bush is there, sat at his round-table with his NWO Sekret Government friends.

We could fantasise about a grovelling British World Government contingent saying something like, 'George. There's this Diana woman she's undermining our British Constitutional System. I think we should instigate a Termination?'.

And then George could say, 'Goddamn Brits, thinking they're important. Hey guys, the NWO World Government can't act on your Domestic issues, can't you get your, erm, MI5 to deal with it?'.

'Well, we tried to discredit her - we tapped her phone, killed her body guard - tried to mentally destablise her'.

'Well, like I said guys, the NWO Government can't mess around with what goes on in your little island', George could chuckle.

'But what about landmines, George? She's been moaning about those - people are listening. I mean even your Bill Clinton's talking about banning them, so much for the Bilderberg Group. I mean it's the Arms trade, George. Surely that's NWO business? Landmines today, it'll be fighter jets to Indonesia tomorrow.'

'Goddammit - you Brits have got a point there! Yeah, ok guys - Diana's gonna have an accident'.

This is obviously a humorous account but it's a possible embellishment of something near the truth. It wouldn't be the first time the New World Order have murdered the innocent in the pursuit of perceived political advantages, remember Yvonne Fletcher. Yet, from the politics of Diana's dealings with the British Establishment, it would seem most likely that a purely domestic termination was planned and executed on the Orders of those concerned with the British Constitutional System. Years ago it was decided to orchestrate an intelligence campaign against Diana, through phone-taps, media maulings the termination of her one-time lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee. This had failed, and throughout this time Diana was getting more and more dangerous. It seems bizarre now that before her death the Media was full of how devastating was her effect on the Monarchy, now the media has fallen silent, as if she was nothing but a Royal asset. The destablisation campaign had failed, it doesn't take to much thinking to devise a possible next-step, namely, 'death'.

From Diana's past problems with the Intelligence services it's clear that there was a sizable plot to undermine her, a course of action decided by MI5/6, the Royal Family and certain old-guard Conservative politicians. Therefore, it would seem likely that from these the 'nod' came. From who exactly we probably will never know.