The Diana Files - Modified Limited Hangout

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:07 pm

sunny, The French court reversed itself over the photographers a short time ago. I think it's in this thread. The photographers were fined a "token" i Euro each, and this is what the English press focused on. But the amount doesn't matter. The court reversed itself. In this one small area, al-Fayed was correct. The Order of Bath is simply the order of "honorary knights". I won't go through it all, but Bush and Clinton are in there. That means that they hold British passports. One in the name Sir George Bush, the other Sir William Clinton. Under the common law, Sir George Bush is a different person than George Bush. Sir William Clinton is a different person to Bill Clinton. They both have secret identities RECOGNIZED BY THE LAW. You can do some pretty amazing things with those.

by **sunny** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:13 pm

yes, but was the possession of their film adjudicated? Who has "legal" possession? In other words, where the heck is the film? I think that film could provide blockbuster evidence- hence the pious outrage over the notion of their publications. ************ Would the "knighthoods" of Bush and Clinton enable them to manipulate the Americans any more than they already have?

by **OnoI812** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:14 pm

Steinberg piece from 2000... In a flagrant effort to dampen interest in the Andanson factor, the June 11 {Mail on Sunday}, a pro-royalist tabloid, ran a story proclaiming "Wife's Affair Led to Paparazzi Man's Car Blaze Suicide." The {Mail on Sunday} dutifully peddled the French government's cover story: "The millionaire photographer who trailed Diana, Princess of Wales in St. Tropez just days before her death, committed suicide when he discovered his wife was cheating on him, French police have revealed.... The eccentric millionaire--who was hailed by colleagues as one of the godfathers of paparazzi photography, and who flew a Union Flag over his house to show his love of Britain--was facing a family crisis at the time of his death." {Mail on Sunday} reporter Ian Sparks quoted an unnamed colleague of Andanson's at the Sipa Agency in Paris, making the preposterously contradictory claim that Andanson "was desperate to save his marriage. We would never have guessed he would do something so terrible." He committed suicide to save his marriage! Right. A French police spokesman told Sparks, "He took his own life by dousing himself and the car with petrol and then setting light to it." Andanson's widow Elizabeth, and their son James have rejected the idea that Andanson's death was suicide. Sources close to the family told {EIR} that they have pressed French officials to conduct a murder investigation into Andanson's death 400-miles from his home. The sources dismiss the bogus "marital problems" story and additionally report that Andanson was in high spirits over his new job with the Sipa Agency. - The Plot Thickens - Just after midnight on June 16, just one week after Andanson's death was first made public, three masked men armed with handguns, broke into the Sipa office in Paris, shooting a security guard in the foot. The three assailants dismantled all of the security cameras in the office, and proceeded to enter several specific offices, clearly aware of exactly what they were looking for. They made off with several cameras, laptop computers, and computer hard drives. Sipa's office employs more than 200 people, and operates 24-hours a day. The three invaders spent three hours in the office, holding other employees hostage. According to one of the hostages, the men were never concerned about the French police arriving at the scene. This hostage was convinced that the three "burglars" were themselves working for some branch of the French Secret Service. Furthermore, the source confirmed that Andanson had worked for French and, undoubtedly, British security agencies. The owner of Sipa, Sipa Hioglou, has worked closely with French intelligence, and, not surprisingly, has been one of the primary sources of the "marital problems/suicide" cover story about Andanson's death, "confessing" to French police and reporters that Andanson had confided in him that he planned to take his own life. Hioglou, in the days following the bizarre break-in and hostage siege of his office, also told police that he suspected that the raid was done on behalf of a disgruntled celebrity who was angry that her picture had been taken by a Sipa paparazzo without her permission. In stark contrast, other Sipa employees have told the police that the idea that Andanson committed suicide was preposterous, and that they suspect that the break-in was related to his death. - What Is Going On? - The Sipa raid, the obvious work of French Secret Service assets, raises some very troubling questions. If Macnamara and Al-Fayed are right, and Andanson was at the crash site on Aug. 31, 1997, and his white Fiat was the car that collided with the Mercedes, what documentation exists of his presence at the tunnel? What photographs exist of the crash scene, and what do they reveal? Was some of this material seized from the Sipa offices in the recent break-in, to assure that it never sees the light of day? Evidence has recently come to light, that within hours of the crash, British and French secret service agencies carried out a series of similar break-ins at the homes and offices of several photo-agency personnel, in a desperate search [for] photos of the crash site that may have been transmitted in the hours immediately after the Alma tunnel collision, and before word of Princess Diana's death was made public. {EIR} has obtained copies of sworn statements from two London-based photographers, Darryn Paul Lyons and Lionel Cherruault, which reveal that British intelligence was hyperactive in the hours immediately after the Alma tunnel crash, desperately seeking any revealing photographs that might have been spirited out of Paris. Lyons identified himself as the "Chairman of `Big Pictures,' ... an international photographic agency in London, New York, and Sydney, specializing in obtaining and selling unique and exclusive celebrity-based photographs." At 12:30 a.m. on Aug. 31, 1997, Lyons received a phone call from a Paris paparazzo, Lorent Sola, who said that he had a dozen photographs of the accident at the Alma tunnel. Sola offered to electronically transmit the photos to Lyons immediately, and Lyons rushed off to his office, receiving the high-resolution photographs at approximately 3 a.m. Lyons immediately began negotiating with several large news organizations in the United States and Britain to sell the pictures for $250,000. Lyons and Sola conferred after word of Diana's death was made public, and they decided to withdraw the offer of the pictures. Copies of the photos were placed in Lyons' office safe. Sometime between 11 p.m. on Aug. 31 and 12:30 a.m. on Sept. 1, the electricity at Lyons' office was mysteriously cut, although no other power outages in the office building or the neighborhood occurred. Lyons, convinced that either the office was being robbed, or bombed, called the police. In his sworn statement, Lyons declared that he believed that secret service agents had broken into his office and either searched the premises or planted surveillance and listening devices. Lionel Cherruault, a photo London-based journalist for Sipa Agency, in his sworn statement, reported that, at 1:45 a.m. on Aug. 31, 1997, he received a call at his home from a freelance photographer in Florida, informing him that he was expecting to soon be in possession of photographs of the tunnel crash. Cherruault told the Florida contact that he was interested. After word of Diana's death was announced, the deal fell through. But Cherruault, who was in contact with his boss at Sipa, stated that, at approximately 3:30 a.m. on Sept. 1, while he and his wife and daughter were asleep, his home was broken into, his wife's car was stolen, and his car was moved. Computer disks used for transmitting photographs, and other electronic equipment, were stolen, and the front door of their home was left wide open. Even though cash, credit cards, and jewelry were visible in the study where the burglars stole the computer equipment, none of those valuables were taken, making it clear that this was not an ordinary break-in. The next day, a police officer came to Cherruault's home and confirmed that the break-in was clearly the work of "Special Branch, MI5, MI6, call it what you like, this was no ordinary burglary." The officer said that the home had "been targetted." The man, whose name Cherruault was unable to recall, assured him "not to worry, your lives were not in danger," according to the sworn statement. The official police report of the Cherruault break-in, which has been reviewed by {EIR}, confirmed that "The computer equipment stolen contained a huge library of royal photographs and appears to have been the main target for the perpetrators."

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>yes, but was the possession of their film adjudicated? Who has "legal" possession? In other words, where the heck is the film? I think that film could provide blockbuster evidence- hence the pious outrage over the notion of their publications.<hr></blockquote> Probably in the same place as the car was kept for eight years. ************ <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Would the "knighthoods" of Bush and Clinton enable them to manipulate the Americans any more than they already have?<hr></blockquote> I'd put it the other way round. It is the "knighthoods" that have enabled Bush and Clinton to manipulate Americans in the first place.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In a flagrant effort to dampen interest in the Andanson factor, the June 11 {Mail on Sunday},<hr></blockquote> Perhaps its just me, but I cant help getting the feeling that all this recent stuff with Charles and the press is some kind of window dressing. Like I said, perhaps its just me.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:27 pm

Ah-ha! The illusionist at work.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ah-ha! The illusionist at work.<hr></blockquote> Its window dressing or it isnt John ? What's your view on this ? And if it IS window dressing, you probably dont do your case any good by attempting to make capital of it. I hope that makes sense, and Im still a fan of yours <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Its window dressing or it isnt John ? What's your view on this ? And if it IS window dressing, you probably dont do your case any good by attempting to make capital of it. I hope that makes sense, and Im still a fan of yours <hr></blockquote> I remember reading an interview with Max Clifford (a prominent British publicist) who said that the general public haven't a chance of distinguishing truth from lies in the press. In the Charles case I think it is window dressing that went wrong. I presume by window dressing you mean the illusionist's diversionary manoeuvre, which draws the eye away from the main action? How does it affect my case? And I prefer my fans to be critical and demanding, as you have been. The only thing I demand is bona fides.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the Charles case I think it is window dressing that went wrong. I presume by window dressing you mean the illusionist's<hr></blockquote> Fair enough, and yes. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The only thing I demand is bona fides.<hr></blockquote> Well, I did say, perhaps its just me. But I think that contrary to what some will say, that your work does make a difference, and that this may well have been some kind of reaction to this. Just my instincts is all.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:32 am

Here is a good example of window dressing. Vodafone has some serious problems out in the real world <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2949.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...2949.topic</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Struggling Vodafone now hit by bitter battle in the boardroom · Chairman and chief executive at loggerheads · Investors in line for £5bn special dividend Neil Hume Monday March 6, 2006 The Guardian An increasingly bitter board room power struggle is simmering at Vodafone, the world's biggest mobile phone operator. The battle for control focuses on Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth - the company's chairman and one of Britain's most respected businessmen - and the chief executive he helped recruit, Arun Sarin. Sources say the situation cannot continue and claim Lord MacLaurin, a Vodafone director since 1997, may be ready to walk away from the company he helped shape. "I would not be surprised if he resigned," one executive who has worked with Lord MacLaurin said yesterday. Previously chairman of Tesco, MacLaurin has already announced his intention to retire from Vodafone after this summer's AGM. He is to be replaced by Sir John Bond, chairman of international banking group HSBC Details of the boardroom tension at Vodafone come amid reports that Sir Christopher Gent, Vodafone's former chief executive and architect of its rapid expansion, had planned to vote against Arun Sarin's re-election as a director at last year's annual meeting. It was also claimed this weekend Sir Christopher tried to block the appointment of new finance director Andy Halford and attempted to install former Goldman Sachs corporate financier Scott Mean as a non-executive director. Sir Christopher left Vodafone in 2003 and holds only an honourary position as the company's president. Lord MacLaurin is said to have intervened and persuaded Sir Christopher not to embarrass the company. Vodafone refused to comment on the allegations yesterday and would say only that Sir Christopher had voted in favour of Mr Sarin's re-appointment. The company also refused to comment on speculation Lord MacLaurin is to receive a £500,000 "golden handshake" when he retires as chairman in July. According to Vodafone's annual report MacLaurin is entitled to one year's money, but it is almost unheard of for a retiring non-executive chairman to receive such a pay-off. Several big investors have openly questioned whether Mr Sarin's strategy was the best means to maximise shareholder value. They have been unnerved by a string of bad news, including a surprise £5bn tax bill, warnings of slowing growth and a £28bn asset writedown. From a peak of 400p in 2000, the shares touched a three-year low last week after Vodafone warned of slower growth in its key markets and increasing competition. There has been a whispering campaign around the City suggesting the chief executive might be forced out by Lord MacLaurin, one of the so called "Newbury Gang". However, Lord MacLaurin's power base has been eroded with the departures of three board directors while Mr Sarin has surrounded himself with newly appointed supporters. Mr Sarin was selected by MacLaurin to take over from Vodafone's Sir Christopher Gent and joined the board following the UK's acquisition of US rival Airtouch in 1999. He was appointed to the top job in 2003. Another executive close to MacLaurin said yesterday: "Lord MacLaurin prides himself on succession planning. One of the greatest things he did at Tesco was find Terry Leahy. He wanted to do the same thing at Vodafone but it has not worked out. Shareholders do not like Sarin and he wants to sort out this situation before he goes." Mr Sarin appeared to have bought himself some breathing space on Friday as the company's shares enjoyed their biggest one-day gain for years after news leaked of a deal to sell its struggling Japanese operation. If the deal goes through investors are likely to be rewarded with a special dividend of up to £5bn. The deal is symbolic as it suggests Mr Sarin has listened to demands that Vodafone focuses on its core business rather than continue to chase acquisitions. Yesterday, Mr Sarin told a Sunday newspaper that he faced a tougher job at Vodafone than his predecessors had. "Clearly it is a more difficult time," he said. Lord MacLaurin, who looks increasingly isolated, was in South Africa this weekend. He could not be reached for comment.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1724315,00.html">business.guardian.co.uk/s...15,00.html</a> In many ways this mirrors British politics. For every serious political story published there has been at least one along the lines of Blair/Brown and their relationship. Some journalists, Andrew Rawnsley and Polly Toynbee come to mind, seem to write about nothing else. Not to get sidetracked. Back to Diana!

by **Anders** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:36 am

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. MI6 have been leaking crapola to elements of the British rags, the Daily Mail and Star and et cetera, that Stevens' report will be a whitewash - though they don't come out and say as much. All conspiracy theories allegedly have been refuted. According to yesterday's Express, which has been fairly diligent in keeping the Diana murder high profile, this is the work of MI6's IOS - International Operations Section - part of their remit being to muddy the waters, to lie and blackmail. I still have not given up on Stevens - until I read the report, I have an open mind as to whether he has been got at or not. Cheers Anders www.dancingonthebrink.com

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This week Lord Stevens, investigating the most famous car-crash death in the world, dismantled all the conspiracy theories. It was an accident, he found, and had Princess Diana been wearing a seat belt, she would have lived. Imagine my surprise.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/comment/0,,1728690,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/e...90,00.html</a> They know the modified limited hangout will be shot down, so they are not even going to try it. Back to the default setting. An accident. And no you CAN'T have an inquest! And we'll keep on pushing Camilla's bum onto the Throne.

by **StarmanSkye** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:19 am

I don't suppose Lord Stevens really had much choice in the matter -- unless he was willing to add fuel to the ensuing shit-storm which, quite likely, would have provoked mass civil protext and unrest, possibly amounting to an insurrection, with outraged calls for the dissolution of the House of Windsor and at the very-least, massive reorganization of MI6 and the Special Services -- that is, an uncompromising investigation that identifies those intricately involved in orderiing Daina's assassination, carrying it out or making it possible/supporting it, and then covering it up and/or lying about it. In short -- of Stevens found it WASN'T an accident then the consequences to British politics and society would be immense. As indeed, holding the PTB accountable and restoring principles of justice will require nothing less -- there's no easy way out for the power elite for their many decades of increasingly horrific crimes and frauds that have betrayed the people and inflicted terrible suffering around the world for the sake of power and wealth and maintaining exploitive abuses -- tho they will evidently try to deflect public opinion and indefinitely delay an accounting (therefore, their alliance of convenience with America's OWN criminal class elites.) But OK -- As follow-up, I wanted to see what else I could find about the 'Boston Brakes' assassination technique that IMO was the method used to cause the catastrophic accident -- which apparently didn't fatally injure Diana and so there was the unconscionable 1 3/4 hour delay before Diana was delivered to a hospital. Everything about the Diana 'accident' and subsequent cover-up stinks. Anyway, the following review is QUITE intriguing, providing more info on the Boston Brakes and other issues central to the tragedy which was Diana's murder. I think I may even get a copy of this book (or at least look for it in the library first!) Starman ****** Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence <a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=186">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...asp?ID=186</a> Book review by Stephen Reid Was Princess Diana murdered? A huge number of Britons think that she was. Now a film, "The People's Movie" is being made about her assassination based on Jon King’s investigation “Diana: The Hidden Evidence” reviewed below. Ed In its pre-launch promotional blurb, this book was billed as 'a serious literary inquiry' into 'the political and historical motives behind the death of Diana, Princess of Wales'. And in its own uncompromising way, that is precisely what it is. Incredibly, “Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence” claims foreknowledge of an MI6 plot to “eliminate one of the most prominent figures on the world stage ... within days from now”. According to the authors this information came from a “US Special Forces veteran and CIA contract agent” (with whom they had already forged a working relationship) one week prior to the crash in Paris. Even more incredibly, this claim is then corroborated by an MI5 source and a second source inside “British Military Intelligence.” Doubtful? Inconclusive? OK, but that is where any doubts regarding the authenticity of this book begin and end. The authors are quick to point out that their findings do not depend on this information. It is included, they say, purely to explain their reasons for investigating Diana's death in the first place. The full interview with the “US Special Forces veteran” is included in the book, and is very revealing indeed. But that is only the beginning. This book is the product of a 2-year investigation, and includes testimonies from many other highly respected sources - crash experts, security and intelligence experts, medical experts, constitutional and historical experts - all of whom offer threads of evidence which the authors string together into a very coherent and compelling case. And when, on occasion, evidence is gleaned from an 'unnamed' source, the authors are quick to substantiate that evidence with the testimony of at least one 'named' source. Often more than one. One such 'unnamed' source - a former SAS sergeant - reveals that the 'accident' in which Diana died bore all the tell-tail signs of a known special forces assassination technique known as the 'Boston brakes'. Agreed, on first hearing, this sounds a bit James Bond - contrived. But bear with it. Because then you go on to read the testimony of former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who confirms that the 'Boston brakes' is indeed a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired 'hit squads', and that it involves the use of a device which remotely controls the target-vehicle's steering and brakes. Fiennes goes on to say that this method has been used at least once in England, and in this regard describes in some detail the assassination of one Major Michael Marman, who was killed in a 'car crash' near Stonehenge in 1986. There's no doubt that the operation that killed Major Marman, as described by Fiennes, as well as by former Equerry to the Queen, Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley, was chillingly identical to the series of events that killed Diana. Once again I have to say that the way the authors are able to continually corroborate their evidence in this way, throughout the book, is very impressive. Another thing that impressed me about this book was its format. From the outset the authors make no bones about the fact that they believe Diana was murdered; hence they present their findings in the form of a courtroom trial - the authors assume the role of prosecuting counsels while the reader assumes the role of jury. In the dock, accused of 'conspiracy to murder', are MI6 and the CIA, together with the British Royal Establishment. And I have to say that the case brought against them is both disturbing and convincing. No wonder the authors were forced to go to America in order to get this book published! Exhibit number one in this 'literary trial' must surely be the two secret letters obtained by the authors - letters written by Diana only months before her death. Addressed to an investigative journalist in America and signed by Diana's personal secretary, the letters shed a new and somewhat sinister light on Diana's landmines campaign in Angola. They clearly show that the Princess was aware of the dangers she faced in defying the Establishment and pursuing her campaign. And that those dangers were far greater than any of us knew at the time. But perhaps the most intriguing contribution comes from a former Foreign Office historian, who claims that he worked for a department whose 'special remit' is to monitor the “counter-monarchy problem.” He told the authors that MI6 are in possession of genealogical records and historical documents that (a) date back centuries; (b) highlight the ongoing power struggle at the heart of the British Monarchy; and (c) challenge the legitimacy of the present Royal Family on the basis of their dubious pedigree. These records and documents are, therefore, being deliberately concealed from public view, the source asserts. Sensational stuff! But what is even more sensational is the suggestion that Diana had herself become part of the above-mentioned “counter-monarchy problem”. Following her ostracism from the Royal Family, the source claims, Diana was courted by supporters of the little-known Merovingian royal bloodline from which she herself descended, and which is today largely represented by Britain's forgotten Royal House of Stuart. As the authors discover, and despite media propaganda to the contrary, the Stuarts are still alive, well and politically active. And what's more, they still bear legitimate designs on the British Throne. Anyway, the evidence strongly suggests that, in her not-so-private war with the Windsors, Diana became secretly involved in a “succession fight ... a fight over the structure of the future of the Monarchy”. It really is difficult to convey the full range of complexities here, given the space limitations. What I would say, though, is this: those still ignorant of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne; their ongoing struggle to be heard; and perhaps more to the point, Diana's own Stuart heritage, should read this book. At the very least it will cast the Princess in a new political light, one that reveals her as - potentially - a massive threat to the continued succession of the Windsors. And therefore as a prime target for 'removal'. Throughout the book these claims, though no doubt offensive to some, are supported by a wealth of meticulously researched and hitherto 'hidden evidence' from which the book takes its name. Also included here is a wonderful insight into the history of the British Crown - how it has been bought, sold, bought again, and ultimately usurped. From the Plantagenets and the Tudors to the overthrow of the Stuarts and the coming of the House of Windsor, this book lays bare the ongoing bloodline struggle and more (plus, of course, the significance of that struggle in Diana's death). Suffice to say here that the 'bloodline' section of this book is worth the cover price all by itself! All in all, Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence is surely the most historically and politically important book of its time. It is certainly the most thought-provoking book I have read in years. Apart from anything else it includes a fascinating and thoroughly researched investigation into the secret histories of MI5, MI6 and the CIA; and an equally disturbing exposé on how British and American banks and corporations funded Hitler's rise to power - all backed up with official FBI and US government documents. In fact the section on The Bid To Unite Europe covers a multitude of corporate sins, from the Bank of England's investment in the House of Windsor (and vice versa) to the Crown's nefarious dealings in Angola (where Diana's landmines campaign was centred). The fact that all of these themes are woven into a most coherent and compelling scenario; and the added fact that, staggeringly, they combine to present the most convincing case in favour of assassination, surely makes this book the most 'should-be-read' volume of our times (especially when you remember what this book is all about - the very real possibility that the Princess of Wales was murdered). If I were to be scrupulously honest I would say that, having read this book, I am now convinced that Diana's death was no accident. And that, as the authors conclude, if we care at all about the accountability of our intelligence and security services (and the Establishment czars who run them) then it is high time that a public inquiry was launched in Britain to discover precisely what happened on that tragic and fateful night in Paris. And perhaps more to the point - why it happened. A must read for all those who cared about Diana - and all those who care about the truth. [Note]: Prepare for a sting in the tail of this fascinating book, as the authors finally track down and gain an interview with HRH Prince Michael of Albany (who subsequently also agreed to write the book's Foreword). The interview was conducted only a short time before the book went to print, and proves the most credible and damning corroborative testimony that even the authors themselves could have hoped for. Prince Michael is a distant relative of Diana and the current Head of Britain's Royal House of Stewart (formerly Stuart). By his own admission he is the first senior Stuart heir since 1887 to officially raise the issue of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne. And as the authors discover, he has paid the price for doing so - his passport has been revoked, making him an effective prisoner in Britain; he has been repeatedly harassed by the authorities, by Special Branch and MI5; and he has been either ignored or debunked by the British media. In other words, Prince Michael is a man on the inside of royal politics - he knows first-hand how the British Royal Establishment deals with 'loose cannons' like Diana, and he is not afraid to speak his mind about it. Indeed, the Royal Family, MI6 and the British Royal Establishment will no doubt rue the day this book was ever written – gripping stuff! ** Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge is published by SPI Books New York and priced at £18.99. The book is also available from its British distributors Roundhouse Publishers tel: 01237 474474 Last updated 15/02/2006

by **Anders** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:13 am

Anyway, the following review is QUITE intriguing, providing more info on the Boston Brakes and other issues central to the tragedy which was Diana's murder. I think I may even get a copy of this book (or at least look for it in the library first!) I have this book. It is an excellent read and well worth the moolah. Stevens has balls - he outed the Army and NI Special Branch in their shoot to kill and assassination antics in Northern Ireland. We just had an open verdict over the obvious murders at Deepcut Barracks (and calls for a public enquiry to Michael Burgess, who is the same coroner who allowed a six year illegal delay over the Diana inquest) - perhaps his (Stevens) report will leave one or two questions 'open' - I really have no clue what he will conclude - the odds are heavily IMO that he will kow tow to the establishement, but stranger things have happened ... Whatever, the public know very well that she was murdered, the polls were running very high to that effect as I recall... Anders www.dancingonthebrink.com

by **Anders** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:16 am

I am catching up on this thread so apologies if this has been posted... This site is an excellent resource <a href="http://www.dianaconspiracy.com">www.dianaconspiracy.com</a> The British Inquest - 21 Questions that need to be thoroughly answered Conspiracy theories that Diana and Dodi were murdered will be investigated by Britain's most senior police officer - Sir John Stevens. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has been asked to "make inquiries" by Coroner of the Queen's Household - Michael Burgess, who has formally opened two separate inquests, six years after the couple died in a car crash in Paris. In order for this inquiry to quash the conspiracy theories once and for all, the following key questions need to be answered. If any of these questions remains unanswered after the British inquest, we can be sure that there is foul-play at work. (1) Who was driving the white Fiat Uno which grazed Diana's Mercedes seconds before the crash, leaving a streak of white paint on the limo's bodywork as well as fragments of rear lights embedded in the front of the limo? The Paris offices of photographer James Andanson were raided by police - computers and cameras were seized after he died in his burnt-out Fiat Uno. He had apparently committed suicide. It was found that his Fiat Uno hadbeen re-sprayed within a few hours of the crash (in red lead in preparation for a full re-spray). Plus, his car had body damage exactly matching the marks on the Mercedes. Surely this would be a significant line of inquiry, but it has been dismissed by the French police. Tests showed that the Uno's original white paint was identical to the traces of paint found on the wreck of the Mercedes, as were bumper samples. In eventually ruling out the vehicle, the French police first claimed that the paint did not match. However, a forensic report carried out for the French police confirms that the paint and bumper samples were indeed identical. The French police also claimed that Andanson had a watertight alibi. But subsequent inquiries have revealed that his alibi was never even checked or corroborated. Eyewitnesses to the crash also report seeing a large dog in the back of the Fiat Uno. Given that their description of the animal matches that of the dog belonging to Andanson, the lack of interest on the part of the police is even harder to explain or understand. One thing is for sure - this point alone demonstrates that the French police who investigated this case are either incompetant, or they are involved in the conspiracy to bump off Diana. (2) Why did French police say within 24 hours of the crash that "Paul was twice the legal drink-driving limit" before his body samples had even been analysed? (3) How come Henri Paul had around £120,000 stashed in 13 bank accounts, despite a salary of only £20,000 as deputy head of security at the Ritz? Where did this considerable amount of money come from? If this was merely earnings from some legitimate part-time business activity or investment then surely at least one other peron would know about it. The fact that the source of this money remains unknown is highly suspicious. It is clear that this money was obtained from someone who wants to remain anonymous - such as MI6 - as Richard Tomlinson has insisted. Tomlinson says that he saw secret MI6 documents stating that they were paying a French informant who was a security officer at the Ritz. This informant MUST be disclosed to the inquest otherwise we will have no alternative but to assume that it WAS indeed Henri Paul. (4) Why have police never provided any explanation for the blinding light that flashed at the mouth of the tunnel as the Mercedes was entering? This intensely bright light was seen by numerous witnesses so it cannot be discounted as mere rumour. We can be reasonably sure that the light was not caused by car headlights, therefore the only other possibilities are that it was caused by either a camera flash, an explosion, or by a hand-held strobe gun. It wouldn't be too difficult to determine the most likely cause of this flash of light - All it would take is to go back to the tunnel at a similar time of night to when the crash occurred. Then, get several vehicles to pass through the tunnel carrying a particular light source. For example, one vehicle could just drive through whilst flashing its full-beam headlights. Another vehicle could go through the tunnel whilst someone in the back uses a powerful camera flash. Then another vehicle could go through the tunnel whilst someone in the back uses a strobe gun, etc. Then it is simply a matter of bringing the witnesses back to the tunnel so that they can identify the particular light source that matches what they saw from their position on the actual night of the crash. This would at least give us the opportunity to find out the most likely cause for the flash of light that the witnesses saw when the Mercedes entered the tunnel. (5) How come the CCTV cameras in the tunnel were reportedly pointing towards the wall and not onto the road? In addition, why was the power cut in the tunnel 30 minutes before the crash - which prevented the CCTV cameras from operating during the time of the crash? And furthermore, why have French police refused to even consider evidence from the 10 traffic cameras on route to the tunnel? They falsely claimed that these cameras were not working at the time of the crash. We now know that they MUST have been working because at least one person received a speeding penalty based on evidence from a camera just yards from the Place de l'Alma tunnel. We need clarification. If the cameras were working, and they did indeed capture any images just before the crash, then we need to identify the driver of every single vehicle captured on film. There are countless CCTV cameras operating in the streets and inside buildings in that particular area of Paris. Any reasonable police officer in charge of this case would request to see all of the images from every CCTV camera within a 2-mile radius of the crash site. Of course, it may take a team of people many weeks to sift through all of the film evidence. However, there would be a 99% probability that at least one of these cameras would have caught sight of the mysterious white Fiat Uno. There is even a high probability that at least one of these cameras would have caught sight of the Fiat's licence plate. The fact that French police have devoted little or no resources to this line of enquiry is astonishing. (6) Police have a photograph of the front of the Mercedes taken seconds before the crash. Who took this photo, and how did this person get to be IN FRONT of Diana's car seconds before it crashed? (7) Why did Diana's bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, suddenly feel the need to put his seatbelt on - seconds before the crash occurred? His job was to ensure that his clients were safe before considering his own safety. In any case, bodyguards are trained NOT to wear a seatbelt because they need the freedom to act quickly to protect their clients in dangerous situations. (<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> At the time of the crash, two American tourists, Tom Richardson and Joanna Luz, were walking along the Seine River when they heard a noise "like an explosion". Immediately they ran into the tunnel to offer assistance and "saw someone jump out from the Mercedes". Also, "A man started running towards us telling us to go" Richardson said. All this happened within seconds of the crash. What Tom and Joanna saw raises all kinds of disturbing questions. Who was it that jumped out of the car? It certainly wasn't one of the paparazzi, for they had not arrived at the scene yet. And who was it that ran up and told them to go? And who was it that removed Henri Paul's head from the steering wheel? We need detailed sketches drawn of these men. We need to know exactly what they were doing, and why. Without a shadow of doubt, these men were part of the intervention team. They remain anonymous to this day, and yet they were THE THREE MOST SIGNIFICANT WITNESSES. What is the statistical probability that the three most significant witnesses to a fatal car crash would ALL decide to remain anonymous? It has to be next to zero, and yet it has happened in this case. WHY? (9) What has happened to British born secretary Brenda Wells, who lived and worked in Paris at the time of the crash. She was one of the most significant identifiable witnesses of the crash, but she soon disappeared without trace. Where is she now? And why did she disappear? On the night of the crash, Brenda Wells was travelling home from a party when "a motorbike with two men forced me off the road. It was following a big car. Afterwards in the tunnel there were very strong lights like flashes. After that, a black car arrived. The big car had come off the road. I stopped and five or six motorbikes arrived and started taking photographs. They were crying 'It's Diana.'" It appears Brenda was attempting to enter the Alma tunnel from the Cours Albert 1er, which runs parallel and connects to the tunnel through a short feeder road. With Brenda Wells, we have the same forces at work as with Tom Richardson and Joanna Luz: she was prevented from entering the tunnel at a crucial time frame coinciding with the exact moment of the crash, or just seconds after it. Anyone who denies the validity of the accounts given by these three credible witnesses immediately exposes themselves. If the current British Inquest is to have any meaning or credibility, these three significant witnesses MUST be present. If they are not, we will know the inquest has nothing to do with trying to discover the truth, but is a shameless exercise by the British inquiry team to try and mask the truth. (10) Another significant witness, Franck Levi, also entered the tunnel from the Cours Albert 1er. Apparently, he was ahead of Brenda Wells. According to Levi, "I saw the Mercedes in the middle of the tunnel with a motorcycle on its left, pulling ahead and then swerving to the right directly in front of the Mercedes. As the motorcycle swerved, and before the car lost control, there was a flash of light. But then I was out of the tunnel and heard, but did not see, the impact." Levi added that he saw a powerful bike with two men aboard exit the tunnel immediately after the crash. For some illogical reason, the French tried to discredit Levi's testimony. For what reason? The French police know that if Levi's testimony is true (and there is no reason to doubt it),it adds further proof of a conspiracy - along with the testimonies of Wells, Richardson and Luz. After all, one vehicle fleeing the scene of an accident is suspicious. But two would indicate a conspiracy. (11) Witnesses Benoit B. and Gaelle L. were driving through the tunnel in the eastbound lane when, according to Benoit, "I heard the squeal of tyres and then the sound of a minor impact. I saw two vehicles. The first one, a dark-colored sedan, accelerated brutally at the moment when the Mercedes that was following it in the same lane [the right-hand lane] lost control. I saw it slide, strike a pillar... then spin around and hit the wall to wind up facing in the opposite direction... When we passed at the level of the wrecked car, I saw a motorcycle or a big Vespa... pass the Mercedes... The motorcycle slowed down, then accelerated and left." Yet another witness who saw the motorbike was Grigori R, a professional photographer (not among the paparazzi), who was travelling in the eastbound lane in his Volksvagen. He says: " Just as I was descending into the tunnel, I heard an enormous shock... I saw a motorcycle moving in the same direction as the Mercedes. It was a rather large motorcycle with a round, yellow headlight... I am practically sure there was only one person on this motorcycle but cannot be totally affirmative...This motorcycle took off very rapidly after passing the Mercedes... As I think about it, considering the lapse of time, it seems improbable that the motorcycle stopped before departing. I think that the driver only had time to slow down or brake sharply." said Grigori. And yet another witness, California businessman Brian Anderson, saw the motorbike. Brian was riding in a taxi when he was passed by the Mercedes, which was being followed closely by two motorcycles. "I felt that the one motorcycle, certainly without hesitation and any doubt whatsoever, was driving aggressively and dangerously." Anderson went on to add the motorcycle swung by the Mercedes on the left, and then veered to the right, directly in front of the Mercedes. He was also emphatic that the Mercedes was only going approximately 70mph, nowhere near the 100mph to 140mph as initially claimed by French police. Just as the Mercedes entered the tunnel, Jean-Pascal Peyret was heading west in his Saab and was exiting the tunnel when he and his wife heard a tremendous crash. However, he didn't realize until the next morning that the crash he heard had been the Mercedes carrying Diana. According to Peyret, "We must have been at least fifty yards in front of the Mercedes. I heard two impacts. It is totally possible that the first one was the collision with the second car." Peyret added that right after the crash, his car was passed by a motorcycle. "The motorcycle passed us, but I can't say it was fleeing. Obviously, he was at the scene of an accident and did not stop." So, who was driving this motorcycle and why did this driver feel the need to get away from the crash scene? Anthony Scrivener QC, a former Chairman of the Bar Council, concluded in his personal inquiry into the crash, by stating that, under French law, there is certainly enough evidence to charge that missing motorcyclist with manslaughter. There is an interesting twist to Peyret's story, which, in a crucial slip-up by the French authorities, implies that the surveillance cameras outside the tunnel WERE indeed working that night, despite French police claims to the contrary. As soon as Peyret realized it was Diana who had died in the crash that he and his wife had heard the previous night, he immediately called the police to give a statement. They took down his name and phone number and said they would call him back, which they did shortly after. This is how that phone conversation started: "Monsiur Peyret?" said the caller. "This is the criminal brigade. Thank you for contacting us. As a matter of fact, we were expecting your call." Peyret found this last remark curious, and vaguely worrisome. How could the police possibly have been "expecting" his call? There is only one answer: surveillance cameras outside the tunnel WERE working that night. They undoubtedly got his license plate number from the surveillance photos, ran it through their computers, found out he was the owner of the car, and knew he would be calling because the photos showed he had been in the tunnel at or about the time of the crash. There is no other conceivable way that they could have known he would be calling. It also shows the search for the missing Uno (and let us not forget the "powerful motorbike" too) is a farce. Since the surveillance cameras were indeed working, it would be a simple matter for the French to track down the Uno, if they really wanted to. This is significant proof, as if any were needed, to support the suggestion that the French are engaged in a criminal coverup in the murder of Diana, Dodi, and Henri Paul.We need to know the identity of the motorcycle rider who failed to stop at the scene of the crash. (12) What about the small dark car that was seen racing away from the scene? Gary Hunter, a London lawyer, was in his 3rd-floor hotel room, less than 100 yards from the Alma tunnel, when he heard the crash. "I was watching television when I heard a crash at exactly 12:25 am. There was an almighty crash followed by the sound of skidding, then another crash. My initial thought was that there had been a head-on collision. I went to the window and saw people running towards the tunnel." Seconds later, Hunter saw a car turning from the area by the tunnel exit and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon, the street directly below him. " I heard the screeching of tyres. I saw a small dark car turning the corner at the top of the road. I would say it was racing at 60-70 mph. My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there. I am confident that car was getting off the scene. It was obvious they were getting away from something and that they were in a hurry. It looked quite sinister." Hunter added that the car was being shadowed by another vehicle, a white Mercedes. So, we have a list of significant mobile witnesses, who all mysteriously felt the need to vacate the crash scene: The white Fiat Uno (containing at least 1 person) The powerful motorbike (containing 1 or 2 persons) The "small dark car" (possibly a Peugeut containing at least 1 person) The white Mercedes (containing at least 1 person) In addition, we have a number of witnesses who were seen at the crash site immediately after the crash happened, and yet they all remain anonymous: The man who removed Henri Paul's head from the steering wheel. The man who ran towards Tom Richardson and Joanna Luz, telling them to go. The man who was seen to jump out of the Mercedes seconds after it crashed. In addition, we have a witness who gave a police statement, but later vanished without trace - namely Brenda Wells. And then there are those other significant witnesses whose statements were virtually ignored by French police. Why? View all eye-witness reports (13) Why did the ambulance carrying Diana take 70 minutes to travel 3.7 miles to the hospital, passing two other, nearer hospitals along the way? It was claimed that it drove at such a slow speed in order to prevent any aggravation of Diana's injuries. But this flies in the face of logic. The first doctors at the scene of the crash have said that Diana's condition was not life-threatening. If this was the case then - why the need to drive so slow? On the other hand, if Diana's condition was so bad that it required urgent hospital attention to keep her alive then - why the need to drive so slow? In other words, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for the ambulance to travel all the way to the hospital at walking speed. Even if the ambulance had gone at only 30mph, it would have arrived at the hospital within 7 minutes. An ambulance can go through red lights, and it has full priority on the road, so there was absolutely no need to go at walking speed. The ambulance staff claim that the slow speed was needed in order to keep Diana's blood pressure stable. But this is a lame excuse because the ambulance could have gradually increased the speed to about 30mph. Then, as it approached the hospital, the ambulance could have gradually decreased speed. This would have prevented any complications as the result of sudden acceleration and deceleration, yet it would still have got Diana to the hospital within a few minutes. Remember, it's not the speed that can affect blood pressure, it's the sudden acceleration and deceleration. In addition to the above, why did Diana's ambulance stop for 10 minutes on route to the hospital? Hospital staff deny that Diana was given a shot of adrenaline on the way to the hospital (as ambulance staff have claimed). Therefore, why did it stop for 10 minutes? This is clearly unusual and it needs to be investigated thoroughly. We need to identify the ambulance staff, and we need a detailed step-by-step account of what happened in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. If possible, we need a minute-by-minute account of what happened. We also need to get conclusive confirmation from the hospital staff, and from the doctors at the crash site, of Diana's precise condition. In order to explain why it took so long to get Diana into an ambulance, French police claimed that Diana's Mercedes was armour plated and that this prevented her from being removed from the car immediately. However, we now know that the Mercedes was NOT armour plated and that she did NOT need to be cut free from the Mercedes. In addition, the first doctor on the scene was easily able to hold Diana's hand, take her pulse reading, and comfort her. He could not have done this if Diana had been trapped inside the Mercedes. Therefore, why did the French police attempt to mis-inform us? What were they attempting to hide? (14) Diana's chauffeur, Henri Paul, allegedly had enough carbon monoxide in his blood to render him incapable of walking, let alone driving. Where did this high level of carbon monoxide come from? Was Henri Paul's blood sample switched or tampered with? Paul died instantly so it is impossible for him to have absorbed the carbon monoxide from punctured airbags, as French investigators suggest. And even if he could, you would expect Trevor Rees-Jones to have had a similar carbon-monoxide reading since he was sitting right next to Henri Paul. Therefore, where did this high level of carbon monoxide come from? In addition, why wasn't a DNA test taken to conclusively prove that the blood sample tested was indeed from Henri Paul? And why did the French authorities refuse to allow the Paul family to hire their own forensic pathologist to conduct an independent set of tests? In fact, the French authorities would only release Paul's body to his family, for proper burial, IF they agreed that the body would be cremated or buried without any further tests. What were the French authorities trying to hide? (15) Why were the results of blood tests that are routinely carried out in French autopsies never included in the official crash report? (16) Why was the entire crash site sprayed with detergent within 4 hours of the accident, thereby destroying vital forensic evidence? (17) Did Diana speak after the crash? And if so, what did she say? Off duty doctor Frederick Mailliez, who stopped at the scene minutes after the crash, says she did. Not only that, Mailliez has said that Diana made him aware that she was pregnant. Another witness at the scene reported that Diana had said "Help, someone outside is trying to kill us". (1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> It has been reported that the only survivor of the crash, bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, told friends he fears for his life if he recovers his memory of the night of the crash? But who should he be afraid of, and why? (19) Why has ex-MI6 spy, Richard Tomlinson, been effectively gagged by UK and US authorities, even though he has some very significant evidence to add to the inquiry into the cause of the car crash? Tomlinson says that he saw MI6 documents that prove that MI6 had planned to assassinate former Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, by staging a car crash in a tunnel, involving motorcycles and a strobe flash gun. Tomlinson also states that he saw further Mi6 documents proving that MI6 had a French informant who was a security guard at the Ritz hotel. Tomlinson is clearly a credible witness, and the fact that he may have contravened the UK Official Secrets Act in releasing such information does not discredit his evidence in any way. Therefore, why is he being silenced, and why has his evidence been ignored by the French inquiry? (20) Why did the Royal family order that Diana's body be embalmed immediately after her death? This is highly unusual in any circumstances, but in these circumstances, it was crucial that Diana's body be left in the same state as when she died. This would have enabled a conclusive pregnancy test to be carried out. However, all we now have to go on is the testimony of one French pathologist who says that he has "seen into her womb". This is meanigless because, just prior to her death, Diana had inexplicably been held in an ambulance for the best part of an hour - long enough to carry out an abortion. The only conclusive way to tell whether she had been pregnant would have been to take a blood or urine sample. However, the Royal family denied us this opportunity when the Queen ordered that Diana's body be embalmed immediately after her death. A senior police source in France, who claims to have seen all of the French documents relating to the case surrounding Diana's death, has insisted that Diana WAS pregnant at the time of her death. "I can tell you that she was pregnant" he said. The source implied that Diana's pregnancy was hushed up to spare embarrassment to her family. Since it was not regarded as relevant to the immediate causes of the accident, or her death, it was not mentioned at the end of the two-year judicial investigation into the crash by a French judge, Herve Stephan. But since this is a very serious claim, it deserves to be investigated thoroughly. Was she pregnant or not? John Burton, the former Coroner of the Queen’s Household - one of two people at her only post-mortem examination - has said that: "She wasn’t pregnant...I have seen into her womb." However, this is just one person's account? Can anyone else corroborate this? And in any case, the fact that it took the ambulance over 45 minutes to arrive at the hospital could mean that just about any surgical procedure could have been carried out along the way- including an abortion. It is not unusual for an involuntary abortion to be carried out in order to improve a crash victim's chance of survival. If the ambulance had arrived at the hospital within 10 minutes, as it should have done, we would not even be talking about whether Diana was pregnant or not, because we would know for sure! (21) Why did Diana, 10 months before her death, decide to give that letter to her butler, Paul Burrell, for "safekeeping"? In that letter she predicts that her former husband - Prince Charles - was planning to kill her by causing a car accident. Why would Diana even think such a thing, let alone write it down and give it to a close friend for safekeeping? And furthermore, how many divorcees have ever felt the need to do that? Diana was seriously concerned about her well-being after getting divorced. She stated on many occasions that she feared for her life, and that she felt that her vehicle would be sabotaged. For her to feel this way AND put her feelings down on paper, she MUST have had something to base it on. People get divorced every day of the week, and yet we seldom hear stories of divorced wives fearing that their ex-husband is plotting to kill them. There is ample evidence to show that MI6 and the CIA both had Diana under surveillance during the months leading up to the crash. Therefore we can safely assume that they knew of Diana's relationship with Dodi, and that they knew the couple were on the brink of getting engaged. It is also within the realms of possibility that they knew that Diana was pregnant. The question here is - what did Charles previously say or do to Diana to make her fear that she would be murdered in a forced car accident? The Royal family have dismissed her fears as sheer paranoia. But in many people's eyes, this excuse is just not good enough. After all, even paranoia has to be based on something! If any ordinary woman had written such a letter, and then died in those circumstances 10 months later, at the very least you would expect the police to formally arrest her husband on suspicion of murder. You would then expect the police to thoroughly search her husband's house and investigate all of his contacts in order to build a picture of how the murder could have been carried out. Of course, they might find little or no evidence, but at least the proper investigative procedures would have taken place. In this case they haven't. Whenever there is a criminal investigation of any kind, it is natural for the police to continuously gather as many facts as they can, regardless of how irrelevant the facts may seem at the time. From these facts, the police can then form a picture of what probably happened. In some cases, the police may have more than one possible picture of what could have happened. It is crucial that no facts are overlooked, regardless of how irrelevant they may seem to the immediate cause of the crash. In this case, we have lots of pieces of information that point towards an alternative picture - namely, a conspiracy. And yet, these particular pieces of information have been consistently ignored by the French investigation. Any honest investigation would surely have looked into each of the parties who had something to gain from Diana and Dodi's death. And then to consider the most plausible ways in which the perpetrators would carry this out. The investigator would need to consider motives, methods, means, opportunities, etc. Using a sniper with a gun would be far too obvious as an assassination. So too would other methods, such as poisoning. Therefore, after considering several possible methods, the perpetrator would most likely decide that the most convenient and plausible method would be to cause a fatal car accident. After all, there were bound to be many occasions when Diana and Dodi would be in a car together. And there was a notorious accident blackspot not far from the Ritz and Dodi's apartment (the de l'Alma tunnel). All the perpetrator would need is a few helpers. The first helper would be an inside informant (such as Henri Paul), who can provide good quality information on Diana's exact whereabouts and intentions. The second helpers would be the operatives who initiate the crash by using a device that would disorientate the driver (this "device" could be something as simple as ramming the Mercedes, or it could be a strobe flash gun aimed at the driver, or both). If we assume that Henri Paul was indeed an MI6 informant (and there is strong evidence to suggest that he was), then it is plausible to assume that MI6 paid him according to the information that he could pick up whilst in the couple's presence. Following on from that, it is also plausible to imagine that, on the night of the crash, Henri Paul informed MI6 that he was going to drive the couple home from the hotel. If this was the case then it is plausible to imagine that MI6 could have instructed Henri Paul to take the longer route to Dodi's apartment. They could, for example, have claimed to Paul that they wanted him to take this route so that he would have more time to listen in on the couple's conversations. On the other hand, MI6 could have used an operative to block the road to prevent Henri Paul from taking his preferred route. Of course, MI6 wouldn't have told Paul that there would be a number of MI6 operatives in place to initiate a crash (one in a Fiat Uno, another on a fast motorbike, and another in a white Mercedes as backup). These same operatives could have been the ones who were seen interfering with the crash scene. Indeed, these operatives could even have previously tampered with the electricity supply to the tunnel to prevent any permanent recording of what was about to happen. Of course, all of this is sheer conjecture. However it is not mindless conjecture. This hypothesis is backed up by the evidence gathered so far. Therefore, this theory is just as valid as the theory that the crash was a "straightforward accident". One thing we do know for sure is that there was NOTHING "straightforward" about this "accident", as you'll discover below: There have been countless car accidents at night in Paris over the last century - some involving serious injury. Out of all those car accidents, there has not been a single one in which it took over 90 minutes to get a seriously injured party to a hospital. There has not been another single accident at the Alma tunnel in which the electricity was cut off at the time. There has not been another single accident in which at least one key witness mysteriously disappears. There has not been another single accident in which the three MOST significant witnesses (at least one of whom interfered with the crash scene) have remained anonymous. There has not been another single accident in which an emergency ambulance (carrying one of the injured victims to hospital) had taken close to an hour to travel 3.7 miles. There has not been another single accident in which an emergency ambulance (carrying one of the injured victims to hospital) needed to stop for 10 minutes on the way for no apparent reason. There has not been another single accident in which the driver was inexplicably found to have had an impossible amount of carbon monoxide in his blood. There has not been another single accident in which an injured party was declared by at least one doctor to be "very much alive" and " relatively unharmed" but who then dies of serious injuries within another couple of hours. There hasn't been another single accident in which the driver was inexplicably found to have had 13 bank accounts containing 6 times his annual salary. There hasn't been another single accident in which the driver was allegedly found to be more than 3 times over the drink-drive limit but was apparently behaving completely normally just seconds before taking the wheel. There hasn't been another single accident in which the police deemed it necessary to announce that the driver was "twice over the drink-drive limit" without even waiting for the results of any blood test. There has not been another single accident in which the ex-mother-in-law of the victim deemed it necessary to demand that the victim's body be embalmed immediately after death. There hasn't been another accident in which one of the victims predicted the crash in a letter 10 months before it happened. The list goes on and on. The odds of all of these co-incidental factors occurring at the same time must be trillions-to-one, and yet we are expected to just accept that there has been no foul-play whatsoever. This case is clearly packed full to the brim with many unanswered questions. And unless the British inquest answers these questions, the conspiracy theories will go on and on and on - and the Royal family will forever be accused of being the instigators of this awful tragedy. Anders www.dancingonthebrink.com

The Diana Files - Modified Limited Hangout

Re: We knew more eight years ago.

Re: We knew more eight years ago.

Re: It's ALL Lies

Re: We knew more eight years ago.

Re: It's ALL Lies

Re: It's ALL Lies

Re: It's ALL Lies

Re: It's ALL Lies

Thats fair enough.

Window Dressing

Re: The Diana Files - Modified Limited Hangout

Triumph of Experience Over Hope

Re: Triumph of Experience Over Hope

Re: Triumph of Experience Over Hope

Re: Triumph of Experience Over Hope

Who is online