The only disturbing thing about the whole affair, is the fact that while Mr Alfayed continues his understandable attempt to get the courts to look at the crash again ( a task I understand he is having extreme problems with ) the royal family cannot open and close their own inquest.
Apparently, Mr Alfayed is unable to get the FBI to release documents on both Diana and Dodi, which he believes will show that there was some sort of a cover up of an assasination. It's a shame for Diana's family that this episode cannot be closed until Mr Alfayed's court action comes to some conclusion. On the other hand, I suppose that it's perfectly understandable that he would want to try and find out anything he can about his son's death.
The French judge who presided over the investigation stated that there was nowhere else for the investigation to go regarding the white Fiat Uno allegedly involved in the crash, and Henri Paul's family have had his blood tested and re-tested to check the blood alcohol levels. I understand that on each test, the blood alcohol level has been as before, ie enough to render him incapable of driving the car at speed. Mr Alfayed, along with Henri Paul's family, believe that Henri Paul's blood and blood test results were switched by person\persons unknown.
So, I suppose, on the surface of it all, there does appear to be a number of unanswered questions.
definitely unanswered questions.Put it like this;why do the FBI see the need to seal,for security reasons,over 150 documents relating to her death?I have observed drunk and drugged people for over 20 years and Henri Paul ,in the Savoy video ,was neither .
Actually its my usual comment that she discovered in Spades, no one is so special they can get away without wearing a seat belt...
It does bring up a further interesting point about the accident. The only person in the car wearing a seat belt was the one person who shouldn't have been, the bodyguard. Its unlikey he was carrying the standard sidearm for diplomatic escort, since he was private hire, rather than HM Forces, but its not usual for security to 'clunk-click', sonce they can't move properly in the event of trouble and I'm certain we've all been caught by the inertia reel at the wrong moment. Anyone know if the merc was modified for 'diplomatic' use or just a bog standard one?
True. Usually the people in the back, if theyre not strapped in kill the ones in the front and are not seriously hurt. Were there modifications such that the rear passengers hit something pretty hard, bullet proof glass for instance?
If u were resposible for the death of your son and his girlfriend due to your employee being pissed. Wouldnt u try to twist and turn a bit?..i dont think Fayed is well known for accepting his own calpability for anything.
I once stumbled across the most wonderful site which detailed how the Duran Duran track "The Chauffeur" was an unwitting prediction of the death of Diana, channelled through the band by a higher power! The obscurity of the lyrics and the unusual chord structures were considered as evidence of the songs revelatory nature. I was so intrigued I forgot to bookmark it and can no longer find it!! Anyone else come across this one...?
Intersting point... A point I bought up earlier... Why was the ONLY person wearing a seat belt the one who shouldn't have been? In 'standard' bodyguard duty (diplomatic run done by HM Armed Forces) you don't wear a seat belt for serveral reasons
1) If you are amred you can't easily draw your weapon
2) If the car is stopped, you can't react instantly to a threat since you're messing with a belt ( and how many times has anyone on this board found the inertia reel has activated? At the worst possible moment?)
So that leaves a few options:-
1) The bodyguard wasn't much cop
2) The bodyguard saw it coming and belted up, although my interia reel comment above applies... try and put a modern seat belt on quickly... its like an 'It's a Knockout!' event
3) (Potentially, if you like conspiracies) The Bodyguard was involved, although he was a helluva mess after the accident).
Has ANY autopsy information been released, since, as was pointed out by Mr Bingo, death by car isn't that reliable. What was the injury list on Dodi alFayed and Diana? What was the cause of death of the Chaufeur?
Alive, Diana was an embarrasment to the House of Windsor and
undermined the whole concept of monarchy.
Just suppose the succession skips Charles (perhaps he has a
The next king would have a 'saint' for a mother. Royal glamour
restored for generations to come - you can imagine the commentator's patter at the coronation "The eyes of the world.... he must regret his mother not being here to see... she would have been proud..." etc.
You can't always tell if someone is drunk just by looking at them. Not everyone is affected in the same way. When I get drunk I can still walk in a straight line but I would be totally incapable of driving :cross eye
My personal theory is that Diana (A decendent of Christ via the Merovingians) was pregnent by Dodi (A decendent of Christ via Christ's family in Egypt). Now, on holiday in the Mediterranean just before going to Paris Diana had also been impregnated by the Quinataur ( A sea-monster that was the father of Merovie, the founder of the Merovingians). The assassination was carried out by the decendants of Charlemagne (whoever they may be) to prevent this decendant of Christ, Royalty and a sea-monster from eventually ruling the world. :eek!!!!:
With the introduction of the Spencers to the Royal line, it effectivly returns the Stuart line to the throne with William, the Spencers being a bastard line from the Stuarts. 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' outlines the descent of the Stuart from Merovingian kings, so your reasoning means that both boys are potential targets....
Probably the bodyguard saw danger and belted up.They were driven off the road.Interesting the attacks on Mr.Al Fayed who has done more to enhance the image of the U.K.than Philip the Greek has ever done.How long ago did the royal family start speaking English and abandon their native German and Dutch?
Diana was more English than somebody born in a faraway country of Dutch(or was it Danish)parentage.She was a shining example of human goodness and weakness that we all have and she will be eternally remembered unlike the blow-ins.
The CCT footage of Henri Paul talking and walking with Diana and Dod is not smooth footage, ie, it show them walking and talking to each other at a rate of about a frame a second. I'm not convinced that you could tell if someone was stumbling about in a drunken manner from this type\quality of footage. I'm also pretty sure that the whole evening that Diana and Dodi were enjoying was a strictly unofficial affair and it was only relcutantly that Diana had allowed Mr Jones along.
The whole affair is shrouded in mystery and the true facts will probebaly never be known, mainly because the two main proponents are now deceased. I haven't read Mr Jones' book yet, but I bet it's a good read.
I agree with Mike P, you don't have to be telling everyone you love them in order to be incapable of driving through winding streets at high speed. I also recall Henri Paul was also taking some kind of medication at the time which combined with alcohol is bad news. Also, a look at the underpass where the accident occurs shows it's an extremely tricky manouver even for a sober driver at that kind of speed.
The most interesting, and as yet unsolved, part of the case is the collision of the Mercedes with a white Fiat Uno which caused Paul to lose control of the car. This was determined by the collection of paint flecks on the wreck of the Mercedes.
Somewhere out there, we have a prime eyewitness with a car that was never tracked down.
A final interesting footnote was that Henri Paul was listed as an MI6 informant, as revealed by disenfranchised MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson, though recruitment of heads of security at major hotels is normal practice to assist intelligence in carrying out bugging ops.
Here is the text of the written statement which Tomlinson submitted to the French investigating judge and which related to his time with the security service.
Attached below is a sworn and testified statement that I have made on 12th May 1999 to the enquiry into the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that MI6 have information in their files that would assist Judge Stephan's enquiry.
Why don't they yield up this information? They should not be entitled to use the Official Secrets Act to protect themselves from investigation into the deaths of three people, particularly in the case of an incident of this magnitude and historical importance.
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 tosmuggle 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. One 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 informant's 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 officer's 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", 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 Herv 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 Herv 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 as 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 MI6's 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.
I found this on Sunday. Strange deaths around this subject are possibly not suspect simply due to the nature of certain occupations i.e. sticking one's lens in the wrong place can be life limiting... but its a small population to go at even then
We have to be careful with witness testimony, though. The JFK industry has taught us that what is told to independent researchers with books to sell after the case is closed is not necessarily the same as that given to the official enquiry.