Diana death assassination
Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
Diana Death Conspiracy - An Assassination
by JOHN QUINN
I work as (among other things) a free-lance journalist. It took me about a week or so after the tragic car crash which took the lives of Princess Diana, companion Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul to piece together that we, the public, and apparently the press, were being completely manipulated and lied to about the so-called accident. I'm really only scratching the surface of this truly shocking story, as I don't have extensive financial resources to devote to investigating this story in any serious depth, which it absolutely demands. There are a tremendous number of very troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by authorities or by the major news media.
The London Times on Sept. 21 ran a crucial story which has turned things around substantially; it reports that a highly credible witness, a British attorney, clearly saw another vehicle leaving the crash scene at very high speed in an obvious getaway. This dovetails with mounting material evidence from the crash site proving another vehicle (not paparazzi!) impacted the Mercedes in the tunnel and clearly instigated the disaster -- at least in part.
Officials also said pointedly that they want to know why "bodyguard" Trevor Rees-Jones fastened his seatbelt not long before the crash. The implication is that he knew something was about to happen -- something potentially life-threatening.
Professional bodyguards almost never wear seatbelts as they must be ready for any eventuality at any time. The man's background is British military intelligence.
The mass media really need to realize they have been played by some real masters of the art regarding what was definitely an intentional, meticulously planned and executed murder.
The press urgently needs to start asking the great number of questions regarding this mysterious fatal car accident.
It is a certainty beyond any doubt that the crash that ostensibly killed Princess Diana was an intentional murder and the reporting of the events preceding, during and after the tragedy has been thoroughly manipulated by intelligence agencies.
Incredibly, after the major news noted in the first paragraph above, of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony which had caused investigators to completely reevaluate the case, all mention of the latest turn of events seems to have disappeared from the news.
Why haven't Her Majesty's Secret Service, British Intelligence, Interpol, Scotland Yard, etc. shown apparently the slightest interest in investigating what is less and less likely to have been an "accident"?
Even the merest indication that it might not have been an accident should have triggered massive investigation by those agencies. The fact that there was none is just unbelievable, especially in light of the latest news I mentioned. It might not be stretching things too far to speculate that itself strongly suggests conspiracy and coverup at rather high levels.
There are far too many holes in the official story. The coverup is relying on the unprecedented and quite unbelievable lack of media scrutiny of the events.
It's just totally outrageous that this wretched murder could be contorted, spin--doctored and finessed into an being accepted as an "accident" by the whole world. That is almost more disturbing than the assassination itself!
It's been pointed out to me that due to the extreme strictures of Britain's Official (National) Secrets Act, certain topics can be designated as matters of national security of which any published (or public?) discussion is completely forbidden ; if this order is violated, the "offenders" can be immediately incarcerated, their publication facilities etc. closed/dismantled; further, if any mention whatsoever of those actions (i.e. against the publisher of the forbidden information) is made by any other publisher, the publishers of that subsequent information are likewise subject to the exact same penalty; thereby enforcing press censorship of the very fact of press censorship! I imagine that this extraordinarily restrictive situation would impinge severely upon the ability of any news organisation to deal with certain matters at all.
According to other terms of this National Secrets Act, any publisher/news organisation who receives information, publication of which would violate the previously noted terms, is obliged to inform British authorities of that fact -- as well as the source of the information. How nice.
It's been further pointed out to me that MI5 and MI6 are literally sworn to protect and uphold the monarchy and the (German) royal family (lower case intended) above all else and at all costs; thereby the "termination" of Diana was seen by those designated operatives enjoined to carry it out as a necessity to ensure the continued rule of monarchy -- an absolute necessity.
I'm not suggesting that the situation in the U.S. is any better; perhaps superficially there is more of an illusion of freedom in that regard. However in terms of what is actually "on the books" I can't think of any comparable law effective in the U.S. ... yet.
Of course the NSA, CIA, etc. pretty much write their own program regarding such matters in the U.S., and if the actual information which the public receives through the media is completely manipulated anyway, the end result is pretty much the same.
The method in the U.S. seems also to involve more sinister threats and certainly malicious and/or deadly actions to enforce secrecy on such (top-secret) matters. At least one journalist (not me) here has been warned by certain CIA operative to back off the Princess Diana story, or he may "get his fingers burned." The UK law noted ensures more direct and complete control with much less chance of leakage regarding such state secrets however. Very unfortunate either way.
No matter what, we can honor Diana's memory by standing strong against the forces that in all likelihood viciously took Diana's life. Diana Spencer consciously set out to use her position of great influence to counteract many of the negative and bitter results of such international policies implemented globally by just such forces, and it seems because of that, in addition to several other "reasons", she was assassinated.
An article in Sunday's London Times of September 21 reports that there is a highly credible eyewitness to the events immediately after the crash in Paris' Pont de L'Alma tunnel which took the lives of Dodi Al Fayed, driver Henri Paul and ostensibly Princess Diana at 12:20 AM on August 31. The witness, British attorney Gary Hunter, distinctly observed another vehicle fleeing the scene at very high speed. This brings the investigation of the tragic events full circle: back to a number of similar initial eyewitness accounts which were totally ignored in a series of rush-to-judgment scenarios.
Quite noteworthy also was the fact that Mr. Hunter's testimony had been given to the Fayed's legal team not long after the crash, and was duly passed on to French authorities by them; information which authorities apparently did not pursue and which was not publicized. This news as well as corroborating evidence Paris police now have from pieces of wreckage found at the scene which are not from Diana's Mercedes, have abruptly forced the entire incident and all relevant preceding and following events to be immediately and completely reevaluated and reexamined as non-accidental-- in fact, as a probable homicide or assassination.
There are a large number of very troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by various authorities or by the major news media. Why haven't Her Majesty's Secret Service, British intelligence and other appropriate agencies shown any interest in investigating what is less and less likely to have been an "accident"? Even the merest indication that it might not have been an accident should have triggered massive scrutiny by those agencies. A great many such indications will now be brought forth.
Impartial skepticism as well as sincere yet non-gullible open mindednes are prerequisites for getting as close as possible to the truth, to the heart of any matter.
In addition, a resistance towards jumping to conclusions regarding potential "conspiracies" behind every significant or unusual event should be balanced by an unwillingness to immediately and unquestioningly accept the officially authorized versions of such events, especially those from which certain of the "powers that be" stand to gain significantly, and in particular any such events which involve the unexpected and/or somewhat puzzling death of a major world figure.
One of the most blatantly suspicious of the great number of very troubling inconsistencies in the "official" version of what supposedly happened that night in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel concern the physical and mental condition of Trevor Rees-Jones, claimed to be a personal bodyguard of Dodi Al Fayed's and the only one in the car now still alive.
Rees-Jones, although very badly injured, was not killed. He could offer invaluable insight into what actually occurred during that brief ride which ended with such horror and violence. If indeed there were malicious or unusual events precipitating the crash which Rees-Jones was uninvolved in or which he had come to regret any such involvement in, or even malicious actions after the crash, perhaps en route to or at the hospital, then Rees-Jones' testimony could be extremely important.
Although early reports said that his face, tongue and lips were severely lacerated and his condition extremely grave, a news story on Sept. 8 said that Rees-Jones was recovering reasonably well, and had told his mother how terribly upset he was about the accident, how guilty he felt, but that there was nothing he could have done to prevent what happened.
Obviously the man was aware that a very serious tragedy had occurred, and the definite sense conveyed by the story is that he was aware Diana (and Dodi) were dead. It also says that he has suffered no brain damage of any kind.
Amazingly enough, 4 days after the news item I just noted, another news item said that the poor fellow's hold on consciousness was so slight and that he was so physically, mentally and emotionally distressed that he had not yet been told about the death(s)!, and, one would think, by extrapolation, had not yet been told about the crash!? Incontestably, there is funny business afoot here.
A third news item really clinches the setup, and shows without doubt that not only is the news being manipulated, but also that this man's mind is being intentionally damaged and his memory tampered with. The article says that Rees-Jones may not even be able to remember the crash, because his mind is so messed up, but mainly from "anesthetics" and other drugs administered at the hospital!
The article also quoted his mother, who 4 days ago says she was told by her son how badly he felt about what happened, as now saying that ..."he's unconscious most of the time.. he's not fit enough to be told ..." It sums up by stating that Ress-Jones may never be able to remember the events preceding the tragedy, and judging by the effects of the current "treatment" being given Mr. Rees-Jones, he will never be deemed fit enough and thus will never be told! (Perhaps it might jog his memory too much).
Predictably, a September 18 news bulletin says that the judge investigating the deadly crash found Mr. Trevor Rees-Jones had no recollection whatsoever of the events preceding and during the crash!!! This was clearly a result of the mind-altering drugs administered at Salpetriere Hospital, which effectively erased his previously intact memory of the events! This is according to the hospital's own sources.
It is obvious from reading these four news stories in chronological order that they are thoroughly contradictory. Someone isn't even covering their tracks at all on this. Maybe they just figure that no one will notice, and if we do, so what?
In another report on recent developments in the investigation dated September 21, London's Sunday Mirror said investigators want to know what caused bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones to fasten his seat belt shortly before the crash, as if he knew what was coming! Bodyguards, who need to be always ready for action, do not usually wear their seat belts while on duty.
The background and status of Mr. Rees-Jones is notably obscure; he has an extensive career in military intelligence (in the Gulf War and North Ireland) and subsequent secretive activities as a (supposedly) private citizen. Rees-Jones was initially reported to be Diana's bodyguard, yet later reports placed him as an employee of the Fayed organization, perhaps a sleeper agent previously planted in that position to be called upon when needed.
It would seem Rees-Jones was aware that something was about to happen to the vehicle -- something life-threatening. As a professional bodyguard Mr. Jones' responsibility was to ensure the safety of Princess Diana and her companion at all costs. For example, if driver Henri Paul was so drunk and out of control throughout most of the ride as has been claimed, why didn't Rees-Jones do his job and reach over and turn off the ignition or if necessary, cold-cock Paul? Once again, little in the prevailing "official" version if events fits.
It is literally impossible for driver Henri Paul to have been anywhere near as drunk as is being claimed when he took the wheel, as well as under the influence Prozac and other medication too. The prescriptions Mr. Paul had and a statement from the doctor who wrote them should be made public immediately. This man's name and reputation have been completely demolished and he's no longer around to defend himself. After the original attempt to implicate the "paparazzi" directly in causing the crash failed to stick, it seems it fell to the late Mr. Paul to become the scapegoat.
News published worldwide that Mr. Paul was a recovering and/or latent and/or occasional alcoholic was just that to all who knew him -- news.
Not one of the friends, associates and family questioned by investigators considered him to be an alcoholic or suffering from clinical depression.
Video footage taken shortly before the tragedy at the Hotel Ritz shows him in fact to be in full command of himself, and no one in the entourage noticed that he was inebriated before he took the wheel.
According to an AP item dated 9/11, 'The mother of Princess Diana's driver said in an interview published today that her son did not suffer from alcoholism or depression despite tests showing he had drugs used to treat those illnesses and high blood-alcohol levels in his system.
"My son wasn't an alcoholic," the daily Le Figaro quoted Gisele Paul as saying of her son Henri. "Can one imagine that the Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed would have agreed to get in a car driven by someone who is drunk?"
Paul "was not depressive and behaved perfectly," the paper quoted his mother as saying.
A Paris friend of Paul's, Claude Garrec, has described him as a "bon vivant" but "in no way depressed, just overworked."
Paris police have been attempting to establish how Henri Paul came to have a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit. The man's background and his demeanor both the night of the tragedy and in general was not that of an alcoholic. Just because alcohol is found in somebody's blood post mortem, does not indicate how it got there. Very likely the police have released this information because there are too many troubling inconsistencies. By making this public they are letting the evidence either be challenged or corroborated, and the consensus among Mr. Paul's friends, family and associates is that he was definitely not a heavy drinker.
The police themselves have offered no scenario explaining how Henri Paul's blood alcohol level could have been that high, and they haven't made public any information on who prescribed the antidepressants he was on, if indeed anyone did.
If there is such irrefutable evidence supporting the drunk driver theory, one would think that the royals or the Spencer family would have made a major public statement against drunk driving, or decided to use a portion of the money accumulating in the Diana Memorial fund to campaign against drunk driving. For instance In the US, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has already begun using a new slogan for their campaign: "Drunk Drivers Have Taken Too Many Little Princesses Already".
Over the weekend, Laurence Pujol, a former girlfriend of Mr. Paul, told the French daily newspaper Le Figaro that during the five years they lived together Paul was only a moderate drinker and was not clinically depressed. In fact she was quoted as saying "I'll remember someone who lived life to the full. His self-control was very impressive -- he loved to be in charge of the situation and had great plans. His professional conscientiousness was irreproachable."
Pujol said she had never known him to take any medicines, nor seen him drink alone. He had also recently been to see his personal doctor, Diane Beaulieu D'Ivernois, and received a routine medical for his pilot's license. She wouldn't discuss her patient's medical background, but journalists obtained transcripts of his medical record going back nearly 20 years. He had undergone regular tests on his urine, reflexes, coordination and emotional state and no problems had been indicated. Laboratory reports said that liver samples showed conclusively that Paul was not a habitual heavy drinker.
Alexander Wingfield, a bodyguard employed by the Fayed organization who was protecting the Princess and her companion, Dodi Fayed, told the American ABC television network that he was with Mr. Paul for two hours before the accident and nothing indicated that Paul was drunk. "He looked and behaved perfectly sober to me. Over a period of about two hours, I was within a few feet of him on several occasions and never smelled drink on his breath".
"Henri drove well... He was a professional driver as far as I could see," Wingfield recalled about his ride into Paris from Le Bourgetairport hours before the crash in one of the backup vehicles, a Land Rover driven by Mr. Paul.
Joel Fleury, the owner of Le Grand Colbert, a local restaurant where Mr. Paul often dined with friends, told reporters, "He was a straightforward guy. He appreciated good French cuisine and enjoyed a drink. But I have never seen him drunk. When he came with his girlfriend she would have a glass of champagne. He would just sip Perrier water."
Paul dropped his passengers off at approximately 7 PM and returned to the hotel Ritz at 10.08 PM after receiving a call around 10 PM on his mobile telephone. By the time he returned a large pack of paparazzi was outside the front of the hotel waiting for Diana and Dodi to leave.
Between 10.30 PM and midnight Paul wandered out of the front entrance and started chatting to one of the paparazzi with whom he was acquainted. Paul wanted advice on which flash to buy for a new camera he had recently purchased. Paul seemed "very relaxed", according to the photographer, who had met Paul many times before. Over the next hour or so Paul came out repeatedly to talk to the photographers. As noted, video shot during this period by a Ritz security camera shows a man who appears fully sober.
1997 John Quinn, NewsHawk Inc.All rights reserved
(The preceding article is from NewsHawk)
++ NewsHawk subscriptions cost $15 US for three months, payable by MONEY
ORDER only, made out to JOHN QUINN (of course cash is OK, but
inadvisable for snailmail).
++ Any donations of funds should also be sent as a money order made out to
++ Mail donations and payments for subscriptions to:
PO Box 106
Laytonville, Calif. 95454