Bilderberg.org

[Vitchilo]

I hope this will raise new questions and bring some answers to light, especially with why Diana was killed, to prevent her to marry a Muslim, something that would had slowed the post-9/11 effect of ``every muslim is a terrorist`` bullcrap propaganda. With the charism of Diana, she would have slowed it or even stopped it, nullifying the police state effect.

No Mr Windsor you're never, repeat never, going to get away with this one. The assurances the "forces in this country about which" your mother has "no knowledge" gave you were as nothing. Your legal wife is not going away and your deeds, not her, will hunt you for ever.


What a farce! Journalists at the Thursday Press Conference were only given the report AFTER the question and answer session with Lord Stevens was over!

The Daily Mail on Friday has a ridiculous headline - which appears to have been planted by one of Prince Charles' minions - that Charles wanted to split up with BOTH Diana and Camilla! Boy have they been duped but the British public aren't as stupid as the Charles camp think they are

[TonyGosling]

DIANA: Why were 18 key witnesses ignored by inquiry?
Daily Express
Wednesday December 13th 2006
By John Twomey
A £4m inquiry, but 18 key witnesses are ignored in the final report. Why?
CRUCIAL witnesses to the car crash which killed Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed claim they have never been interviewed by British investigators.
Eighteen people gave statements - many suggesting there was more to the Princess's death than a simple accident - to French police In the weeks after the Paris tragedy.
But despite their evidence raising many questions, they have been -Ignored by officers from Lord Stevens' Inquiry team.
Details of the statements emerged for the first time yesterday -two days before the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner is due to publish the findings of his three-year, £4million Operation Paget Inquiry.
EIGHTEEN key witness-es were ignored by the £4million Lord Stevens inquiry into the death of Princess Diana. Their evidence to French police had raised several questions about the fatal crash in Paris.
But detectives working on the three-year inquiry - which will publish its findings tomor-row - didn't interview them to gather fresh testimony. The revelations come after the Daily Express revealed dis-turbing allegations from a cru-cial witness in the Diana probe who claimed that British detectives tried to pressure him into changing parts of his evidence. The claims by jeweller Alberto Repossi - who insists Diana and Dodi were engaged when they died in the crash -have. been dismissed by the Operation Paget squad.
Lord Stevens' inquiry was set up to finally discover the truth behind how Princess Diana's Mercedes, driven by Henri Paul, came to crash in the Alma tunnel in Paris on August 31, 1997. Dodi's father Mohamed Al Fayed has spent the past nine years mounting a determined campaign for the truth, spend-ing millions of pounds uncovering fundamental flaws in the original French inquiry. He remains convinced that the pair were murdered in a plot organised by the British Establishment, including the intelligence services.
One of the many theories put forward is that the Princess's car was struck by another vehi-cle as it entered the tunnel under the River Seine. And yesterday it emerged that one family which gave detailed statements to French police - but not to their British counterparts - told how they saw two large cars heading at speed towards the Pont de L'Alma underpass in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower.
Moments later, the vehicles disappeared into the tunnel and the family heard the screeching of brakes, the "scrunching" of metal, a first sickening impact and a louder bang followed by the haunting sound of a jammed horn. As the witnesses looked down into the underpass, they saw the wreck-age of the Mercedes car which was carrying Diana and Dodi slewed across the carriageway. But there was no sign of the second car.
The family also told how a taxi, following at a normal dis-tance, stopped at the tunnel entrance but no-one got out. They also recalled seeing a mystery man running straight past them and into the tunnel. The family, which has declined to be named, was interviewed by Captain Eric Crosnier of the Paris crime squad shortly after the crash. The family says it has given no other interviews.
Lord Stevens will present his findings at a press conference to the world's media tomorrow. The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner is under-stood to have concluded that Diana and Dodi died because their chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk and driving too fast.
Paul was also killed and Dodi's bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was seriously injured but survived. Harrods owner Mr Al Fayed suspects British intelligence officers were involved in "organising" the crash and covering up afterwards. He fears the deaths were ordered because the Establishment could not bear the thought of the mother of a future king being pregnant with a Muslim's child.
Last week, his lawyers forced the former senior judge in charge of the inquest to back down over plans to hold preliminary hearings in private. Lady Butler-Sloss said she was persuaded to reverse her decision because of "strong public- interest in the case". But Mr Al Fayed's victory has only fuelled suspicions that a cover-up is being attempted.
Statements made by the French family have been backed up by another witness, Clifford Gooroovado, 41. He said: "The Mercedes car was driving behind another car. The car in front of the Mercedes was probably run-ning at normal speed. The con-sequence was that the Mercedes probably accelerated so hard in order to pull out and overtake this car."
Grigori Rassinier, who was also near the underpass, said in a statement: "There were a number of cars in the tunnel and it was certainly possible that there was one or more other cars travelling ahead of the Mercedes at the time of the crash." Mr Rassinier said he had been contacted by the Operation Paget squad last year and offered to travel to London to give a statement. But he claims he never heard from them again.
Last week, the Daily Express revealed how Monte Carlo based jeweller Mr Repossi alleged he was put under pres-sure to change his story during lengthy interviews with officers from Lord Stevens' squad. The jeweller claims - backed up by receipts and CCTV footage from his Monaco show-room - that Diana and Dodi picked out a £230,000 emerald and diamond band from a vari-ety of engagement rings in a prestigious range called "Dis--Moi Oui"- Tell Me Yes.
Dodi later asked for the ring to be sent to the Repossi store at the Place Vendome in Paris, which the jeweller opened especially so he could visit on August 30 - the day before the crash. The fabulous engage-ment ring was later left at Dodi's Paris apartment where he had planned to present it to the princess. Detectives from Lord Stevens' team inter-viewed Mr Repossi three times and his wife once.
In the final meeting in July this year, officers told him that the jewellery was not an engagement ring. Mr Repossi said: "They warned me that if anyone lied to Lord Stevens then he had the power to get people sent to prison," he said. "They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my rep-utation and the bad press cov-erage I would get. But despite all this, I was not prepared to change what I'd said before because it was the truth." The inquiry team vehemently denies any attempt to put pressure on any witness to tell any-thing other than the truth.
Sources close to Lord Stevens' investigation yester-day suggested that the 18 wit-nesses may not have been spo-ken to because their original statements were perfectly adequate and there was no need to interview them again.
FAMILY'S VITAL EVIDENCE-
THE following statement was made on July 4,2006, by a family who witnessed the moments before the fatal crash. They were first interviewed at their home in France in September 1997 by Captain Eric Crosnier of the Crime Squad. They have not been interviewed subsequently by Scotland Yard.
WE made statements to the police on September 16, 1997. The police came to our house to take statements. One of them took notes by hand and the other typed them up on a machine. They printed up our statements and asked us to sign them. They spent about half an hour with each of us. We were not given a copy of our statements and today we are re-reading them for the first time. We have neither of us been interviewed by the police since September 1997.
We were walking along beside the dual carriageway just before the accident and were -conscious that the cars entering the tunnel were driving rather fast, at a speed normal for Parisians; just a few moments before we had commented 'These Parisians are crazy'. However, our attention was drawn by the arrival of two large cars coming towards us and heading for the tunnel. They were large, powerful and dark in colour. Although they were probably being driven at the same speed as the other cars we had seen passing earlier, we noticed them because they were very close to each other.
Just after they left our field of vision, we heard a series of loud noises, the sound of braking, the scrunching of metal (car bodywork), a third louder noise consisting of a bang, and lastly a very loud bang followed by the sound of a horn that had jammed. Although we did not go into the tunnel we looked inside and saw a mass of metal that was undoubtedly the car that had crashed. We did not see the second car. We thought that this second car could have left the tunnel already. No one asked us for any information about this second car apart from the information we gave in the statement to the [French] police.
A taxi was following behind at a normal distance. It stopped just at the entrance to the tunnel; nobody got out of it and we thought they were telephoning for help. Apart from the statement we made [to the French police] nobody asked us any questions about the taxi or its occupants.
There was talk of a Fiat Uno in the press. It was said to have collided with the Mercedes that crashed. We do not know if this car was in the tunnel beforehand because our attention was focused on the two large cars. No one asked us about this car and in any case we could not have said anything because we did not see it.
Absolutely immediately after the accident we saw a man running towards us along the pavement in the Cours Albert, coming in the direction of the Place Concorde and going towards the tunnel. He was about 30 metres from us when we saw him. He ran past and went straight into the tunnel. He was fairly young and appeared to be fairly athletic.

[TonyGosling]

Just imagine if Diana was now married to Dodi with more children - can you imagine what a challenge that would be to the British Establishment?
Most journalists didn't trust Charles and they loved Diana - extrapolate that 9 years down the road and with Muslim children and you have a powerful anti-establishment force. That is what I believe Diana's murder was all about.

see also http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5916

[ian neal]

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=884

DIANA: It's a whitewash
14/12/06
By Mark Reynolds and John Chapman

THE report into the death of Princess Diana has finally been delivered - and offered a nation desperate for the truth a whitewash.

After three years, almost £4million of taxpayers’ money and a promise to uncover the truth behind her tragic death, Lord Stevens has fundamentally failed to answer a number of key questions.

His conclusion – that Diana and Dodi Fayed’s deaths were the result of a simple accident caused by Ritz hotel driver Henri Paul speeding while over the drink-drive limit – flies in the face of much of the evidence he has gathered.

And as the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner admits, the questions that this newspaper has posed – and will continue to ask – about the crash in a Paris tunnel in 1997 will not go away.

Lord Stevens said: “I have no doubt that speculation as to what happened that night will continue and that there are some matters, as in many other investigations, about which we may never find a definitive answer.”

Scotland Yard took the unprecedented decision to publish the results of his three-year inquiry despite fears that it could seriously prejudice the forthcoming inquest.

Any jury presented with the task of deciding how and why the Princess of Wales died could not listen to the evidence without recalling Lord Stevens’ findings and being influenced by them.

Among the many unanswered questions are three critical ones which go to the very heart of the mystery of the sequence of events leading up to the moment Diana’s Mercedes crashed in the Pont de L’Alma tunnel.

* Where was Mr Paul – confirmed by Lord Stevens as an informant for French intelligence agencies – for three mystery hours before the crash?

* Who was the driver of the white Fiat Uno which collided with the black Mercedes carrying Diana and Dodi and why has it never been found?

* Why was Diana’s body embalmed – a process which may have destroyed vital forensic evidence – and who ordered it?

The Daily Express will not stop its crusade to find the answers to these and other questions which suggest an Establishment cover-up of the facts surrounding Diana’s death.

Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, were killed as the Mercedes driven by Mr Paul smashed into the 13th pillar of the underpass at just over 60mph.

Paul, driving fast to escape pursuing paparazzi, also died. Dodi’s bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones was seriously injured but survived. None of them was wearing a seat belt.

Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed last night vowed to spend “every last penny” of his fortune to nail the “gangsters” responsible for the deaths.

He raged: “I’m 100 per cent certain that a leading member of the Royal Family has planned that and that the whole plot was executed on his order with the help of members of MI6. I have had threats but I believe in God and if they want to hurt me or any member of my family, the world knows that the terrorists and the gangsters have taken my son away from me.

“God will help me, I’m sure, and with God’s blessing I will uncover and show the whole world and this country that they have terrorists that come and execute any crime with their power in Government and high places in the Royal Family. They can cover up anything and they think that the public can be duped.”

In his report, Lord Stevens ruled out claims that the Princess was pregnant by Dodi. Mr Al Fayed claims the embalming process would have destroyed evidence of her pregnancy.

Lord Stevens also dismissed claims that the couple were engaged. But he acknowledged that Dodi had planned to ask Diana to marry him on the night they died.

Lord Stevens and his 11-strong team of Yard detectives launched their inquiry, codenamed Operation Paget, in January 2004, at the request of royal coroner Michael Burgess.

He vowed he would go wherever the evidence took him and leave no stone unturned after the original French investigation concluded the crash was an accident.

But Lord Stevens was forced to concede that his inquiry could not give a definitive answer to the crucial questions.

Neither the driver of the white Fiat Uno nor the car has been traced, despite extensive inquiries by the elite Paris crime squad and the Operation Paget team.

Paparazzi photographer James Andanson, who owned a nine-year-old white Fiat Uno in a bad state of repair, killed himself in May 2000. Operation Paget detectives confirmed he was at home on the night of the crash.

Another possible driver for the Fiat, a Paris-based security company executive, was identified. But he refused to co-operate with either French or British investigators.

It is understood that the driver was an illegal immigrant in France and did not stop at the scene of the crash for fear of being deported once his status was uncovered.

Failure to stop and offer assistance is a serious offence in France – another reason why he may not have come forward.

The Daily Express knows the identity of the driver but is prevented from publishing his name for legal reasons.

Lord Stevens said: “Who was driving the white Fiat Uno and why they did not come forward are questions we have considered.

“The French investigation carried out a major search but could not locate the car. After this length of time, it is very unlikely that we shall do.”

Lord Stevens also admitted that despite extensive inquiries, he could not say where Mr Paul was for the three hours before he drove Diana and Dodi on their final journey from the Paris Ritz Hotel.

It has been reported that secret service agents were operating in Paris on the night of the crash.

Lord Stevens said Diana’s body was partially embalmed within hours of the crash to improve its appearance and hide her terrible injuries. But Mr Al Fayed said yesterday: “I know why she was embalmed. She was embalmed because she was pregnant.”

He added: “There are so many suspicious things, so many unanswered questions, but I am the only one who knows the whole truth.

“I am the one who was very close to Diana in the last 14 days of her life. She conveyed to me all her suffering, all the devastation of threats to her life. I am the father who lost a son and a close friend.”

Michael Cole, former public director of Harrods, knew both Dodi and Diana personally and told how Diana was “bubbling over” with happiness.

He said: “One of the last times I saw Diana in the store I had never seen her that happy. She was bubbling over like there was a little secret inside her that was making her glow.

“As far as I am concerned, no one could question how she felt about him. Diana gave Dodi her father’s gold cufflinks. I don’t think she treasured anything greater.”

Mr Cole dismissed Lord Stevens’ report as highly unsatisfactory and incomplete.

He said: “Everything should be put before a jury of normal people, everything in the report needs to be tested. It is highly unsatisfactory that the 18 eye-witnesses were not included in the British investigation.”

Referring to “consistent leaking of the findings”, he added: “The Stevens report is not final. The leaks are most regrettable and Mr Al Fayed is profoundly disappointed that the conclusions of this report have been leaked in this way. The manner in which this report has been released is unprecedented.

“Mr Stevens said there were no definitive answers to certain questions raised and Mr Al Fayed is defiant and determined to find those answers.

“It is terribly convenient to an awful lot of people that Diana is not here.”

Mr Cole said of his boss: “He feels he has a solemn duty as a parent to reveal the facts as he believes them to be.”

* What do YOU think? Is the Diana report a whitewash? Comment NOW at Have Your Say.




OPERATION PAGET REPORT
The report into the allegation of conspiracy to murder Diana, Princess of Wales and Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed has been published today and is available here:
Overview (PDF 85KB)
Full report (PDF 5.3MB)

[Keith Mothersson]

I have just had a post suddenly vanish so am royally cheesed off (must remember to always draft offline then paste in later); so this will be in note form:

Mail has capitulated: Al-Fayad should shut up or get the normal Muslim treatment now. In fact although Fayed's money and determination has driven this investigation/scandal forward the Establishment will now try to equate the whole 'conspiracy theory' with what Fayed has alleged - Establishment horror at Muslim royals, and ignore other motives and dimensions.

For front page Indie bought one of the big alternative stories the govt news-managers had arranged to break that day and also suggested that this story (about Ross Carle's reports about no threat from Saddam) was the 'Real Conspiracy' - subtly devaluing the Diana conspiracy. Indie also carried an article by Spook-linked Dominc Lawson to the effect that the original Fayed/Cole line hadn't been so gung-ho on the meaning of the ring, and hadn't mentioned the pregnancy angle at all - or even saw it a 'defamatory'(fair point). According to Neil Botham's great little paperback The Murder of Princess Diana, Lawson is hubby of Diana's close confidante (minder??) Rosa Monckton, whose brother is also MI6 according to Tomlinson: Monckton's 'Diana not pregnant' line could well be true, though, as could Diana saying she would put Dodi's ring firmly on her right hand (sounds a bit too neat a tale?) - and Diana could have been unclear about what she was really going to do, so wouldn't have told Monckton or Annabel Goldsmithe et al partly cos it would have been spread all around or else got back to MI6? IMO the marriage issue is unclear and could well be a big distraction.

The good news was that the Indie's editorial took the line that "The awkward questions have not gone away":
It defended the right of people to be sceptical (one third of British public) and talked of Fiat Uno, Andanson's Uno being resprayed; and his suicide [didn't mention his head being between the front seats while his body was upright - but Stevens Report does, while managing to take the 'no evidence of foul play' line of the french 'investigation'.]

The editorial also bemoaned lack of CCTV camera images [but didn't call for the full release of all the CCTV footage around that time so we can see for ourselves where the cameras were pointed and the quality of images they were sending back. It seems we are asked to believe that because the French value their privacy, the cameras outside the french MoD were switched off at 9 pm.]

Mark Lawson did a shameful knockabout dismissal of 'conspiracy freaks' in the Guardian; I can never work out to what extent people like him are naive, ill-informed or deliberately exploiting the fact that most people haven't read the books, websites which would give the lie to the angle they are pushing.

At all events there is plenty of reason for Diana to be bumped off even if from NASA phone transcipts, Monckton reports etc the PTB couold have been sure that Diana wasn't going to marry Dodi. These include

* powerful foe of Royals - not going quietly, in successful media war with The Firm, had lots of incriminating evidence ('Crown Jewels');
* powerful foe of Court circles (gay mafia) and Aristo preoccupation with killing wildlife;
* due to be punished for Hewitt/Harry filiation? standing in way of Charles and Camilla getting married; worst of all she had said Charles 'not fit to be king' - so people were talking about skipping to William;
* landmines issue - cutting across US etc mil-industrial complex can be bad for your health;
* according to King and Beveridge: Princess Diana - the Hidden Evidence, Diana had responded favourably to being sent some Executive Intelligence Review material on the Monarchy-City role in world affairs and especially Africa, which her Angola sortie risked revealing to the world;
* loose cannon - nobody knew what political causes she might espouse next (Gulf War syndrome, Palestine?) ;
* Although Al-Fayed talked of the Establishment's fear of an 'alternative' = al-Fayed monarchy, according to King and Beveridge there is an occult dimension to this which goes much deeper - and however ridiculous we think bloodline stuff is, who is to say that MI6/Establishement types don't take it deadly serious?: namely that the problem was a 'counter-Monarchy problem' = Stewart=Merovingian=Jesus=David bloodline which was much more mystically-genetically 'royal' than that of the usurper Windsor dynasty. - so Harry might have been only Spencer-Stewart, not Windsor at all, shock horror.

Not only does mainstream media deliberately hide (or report in ignorance of) the scale of Diana's offenses , they also hide/don't realise the sclae of the culture of Intimidation at the top: thus Diana's fears reported to Lord Mishcon are still now seen as evidence of irrational fears that she might be killed in an accident (did Burrell fake that note?) . ( Diana was reported to be afraid for both herself and Camilla.)

No mention of the evidence in pp 59 ff of Botham's book that Hewitt was warned off by reference to 'look what happened to Manakee' [protection officer moved for being too close to Diana, then died in a road accident] - nor the material in King and Beveridge, p 83, that Camilla may well have been subject to a bungled MI5 car death on night of 11 June 1997, after which Charles stepped up security around her greatly.

Peter Hounam and Derek McAdam also had interesting things to report about the secret services and car crashes in their 1998 book, Who Killed Diana?, Chapter 8.

Hypnotists can induce in people an inability to see a chair in the centre of a small room, then when asked how many chairs the people can't see the chair in the middle of the room but when asked to close a window they move round the chair they can't see.

I think this is a good metaphor for journos ad academics who are unconsciously power-identified and who thus 'can't see' the culture of intimidation at the top, yet see it well enough to know that they mustn't see it, or report it to others.

May all beings know love.[/list]
_________________
Growing the 'matrisphere'/defending Mother Earth, and shrinking the zone of FRATriarchal domination (rule by exclusive brotherhoods of accredited 'real men').

[TonyGosling]

Wednesday, 20 December 2006
http://www.nnseek.com/e/us.legal.self-represent/official_inquiry_that_whitewashed_the_murder_of_princess_27094817t.html
The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Saturday In The Wake Of The Official 'Inquiry' That Whitewashed The Murder Of Princess Diana

'In the late 1980s, with her marriage nothing more than a public show, Diana was having a relationship with her personal detective, Barry Mannakee, but he died in a motorcycle ‘accident’ in 1988. By 1990, Diana was having a relationship with Captain James Hewitt. One day, about this time, she went rushing into Christine Fitzgerald’s healing centre in London in a terrible state. Christine told me what happened next:

‘She was crying hysterically and I said “What’s a matter?” You know it was dog’s died stuff, bottom lip out, full sob. She came galloping through the door. I gave her Rescue Remedy, clutched her, hugged her, calmed her down, and said now tell me what’s going on. “I can’t believe it, I can’t believe it, they killed him”, she sobbed. I said: “Who did they kill?” She told me about her affair with the detective [Barry Mannakee] and how he was decapitated on a motorbike and how she thought it was a terrible accident. But now she knows the royal family killed him because Prince Charles’ senior detective had just told her that if she didn’t cool it with Hewitt, the same would happen to him. He told her she should not think that she was indispensable, either.’

'The royal family are figureheads for the established order that includes those controlling the government, ‘law enforcement’ and the intelligence networks. This is the cabal which, with others in France, killed Diana.'

[TonyGosling]

One user PM'd me this -

I believe that Diana was killed becuse there is no legal way to prevent her from having more Children once divorced, and should she have had more children they would been heirs to the throne.

There was no precedent for her to leave the royal family without losing her life. In years gone by her husband would have had her decapitated.Whatsmore, even if a civil divorce was received, there would have been no way for Charles to remarry even with a divorce.

I read that one King , in years gone by,had his wife declared as the King's sister-(they had not consumated their union)-thereby freeing himself to marry another.I think that I will ever be amazed at the lengths people are willing to go to ,to make their crooked behavior appear to be straight.

The sad thing is that she no doubt knew that her life was in danger.I believe that her inlaws really viewed her as yet another acquisition,and if an order to take her life was given, it may well have been given from within their ranks.