LADY DIANA - Princess of Wales

Death of Diana, Princess of Wales : 

conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Although the initial French investigation found that Diana, Princess of Wales died as a result of an accident, a number of researchers and others, including most notably Mohammed Al-Fayed and the Daily Express, have persistently raised conspiracy theories that she was assassinated. This led in 2004 to the establishment of a special Metropolitan Police inquiry team, Operation Paget, headed by the then Commissioner Lord Stevens to investigate the conspiracy theories. Lord Stevens had been knighted by the Queen, and had received other royal honours prior to the investigation concerning possible royal involvement. In December 2007, witnesses at Diana's inquest were questioned about a letter to Paul Burrell which Diana had written by hand in October 1993, of which only redacted versions had previously been public. In this letter, Diana said, "This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous - my husband is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy. Camilla is nothing but a decoy, so we are all being used by the man in every sense of the word."

Henri Paul

Allegations made about the driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, include that he was in the pay of a national security service, though different versions of the allegation name the country of the security service alternately as Britain, France or the United States. Purported evidence to support this arises mainly from the money in his possession at the time of his death and his personal wealth. These allegations are covered in chapter four of the Operation Paget criminal investigation report. One of the best-known allegations concerns the reliability of blood tests carried out that indicate he had been drinking before he took the controls of the car. The French investigators' conclusion that Henri Paul was drunk was made on the basis of an analysis of bloodsamples, which were said to contain an alcohol level that (according to Jay's September 1997 report) was three times the French legal limit. This initial analysis was challenged by a British pathologist hired by Al Fayed; in response, French authorities carried out a third test, this time using the medically more conclusive fluid from the sclera (white of the eye), which confirmed the level of alcohol measured by blood and also showed Paul had been taking antidepressants. It is claimed that the level of alcohol reported to have been found in Henri Paul's blood was not consistent with his sober demeanour, as captured on CCTV that evening. The families of Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul have not accepted the French investigators' findings. Fayed, for his part, stands by his belief that the Princess and his son were killed in an elaborate conspiracy. In November 2006, various news sources reported that the identity of the person to whom the blood samples belonged, had finally been ascertained, and that the samples belonged to a suicide victim. French forensic pathologist Dominique Lecomte was said to be facing an investigation over allegations of misleading the inquiry. Other sources stated that while there were omissions and errors in the pathologist's report, DNA samples confirm the owner of the blood samples with high alcohol levels was indeed the driver, who was therefore correctly said to be under the influence of alcohol. On December 10, 2006, it was reported that DNA evidence concludes that the blood tested is indeed that of Henri Paul. The tests confirm that original post-mortem blood samples were from driver Henri Paul and that he had three times the French legal limit of alcohol in his blood, the BBC said. It has been disclosed that on November 2006 Lord Stevens had met with Henri Paul's parents telling them that their son was not drunk, and was found to have only had two alcoholic drinks (this was verified by CCTV footage at the hotel). Yet just five weeks later the report stated that Henri Paul was twice over the British drink-drive limit and three times over the French one. An expert cited in the report estimated that Paul had drunk the equivalent of ten small glasses of Ricard, his favourite liquorice-flavoured French aperitif, before driving. This contradicted Lord Steven's previous stance. Another issue raised in court by Lord Justice Scott Baker was the level of carbon monoxide found in one sample, which if true would have shown Mr Paul noticeably unwell. He told the jury: "You may conclude that there are some unsatisfactory features about aspects of the sampling and recording procedures". "Some of the results are puzzling." On CCTV footage made available for the jury, Henri Paul is shown on the night of the accident waving to photographers. Inspector Carpenter who was giving evidence confirmed to the court that Mr Paul had waved at the photographers within minutes of the couple's departure. He said that one of the photographers, sitting in his car close to where the couple would later exit the hotel, was in contact with other paparazzi. Inspector Carpenter earlier explained to the jury: "You will see Henri Paul exit into Rue Cambon [at the back of the hotel] and when you watch this sequence you will see him raise his hand as if waving to the paparazzi across the road. If you look at the paparazzi across the road you will see one of them (Jacques Langevin) raises his camera". The images claim to cast doubt on the long-held belief that the group of paparazzi waiting outside the hotel had been acting without any help from inside the hotel. Al Fayed claims that Henri Paul was working for MI6 and that they set him up.

Allegation of MI6 involvement

Richard Tomlinson, a former MI6 agent who was dismissed from the intelligence services and later served time in prison for breaching the Official Secrets Act 1989, has claimed that Britain's MI6 was involved. Previously, rogue agents of the secret service had investigated John Lennon and tried to destabilize the 1970s Labour government. Although it would not have seemed impossible for such autonomous cells to get involved in a scandal, evidence later discredited the MI6 theory. Tomlinson alleged that MI6 was monitoring Diana before her death (many have said the group helped leak the Squidgygate phone-tap tapes), that her driver on the night she died was an MI6 agent, and that her death mirrored plans he saw in 1992 for the assassination of then President of Serbia Slobodan Miloševic'. Tomlinson was arrested by French authorities in July 2006 as part of their inquiry into the death of Diana. French police were also reported to have seized computer files and personal papers from his home in Cannes. The Operation Paget Inquiry was given unprecedented access to the offices of both MI5 and MI6 to investigate Tomlinson's claims. They found the original memo he referred to from 1992 and it was found to be a proposal to assassinate another Serbian figure if he gained power, not Slobodan Miloševic'. Furthermore, the plan had none of the detail about a car crash in a tunnel. The inquiry consulted the Crown Prosecution Service to see if a prosecution for conspiracy to murder was appropriate for the report's author as it is against British Government policy to carry out assassinations. A prosecution was not pursued but the author was subjected to a disciplinary procedure by MI6. The memo was shown to Tomlinson and he confirmed it was the one he was referring to in his claims. The inquiry found no evidence Henri Paul was an agent for any security service and only had very limited occasional and unpaid contact with the French Security Services due to the sensitive nature of his job. It also found limited evidence of surveillance of Diana, mainly arising from phone calls she made to her friend Lucia Flecha De Lima at the Brazilian Embassy but there was nothing to suggest a concerted effort to bug her phone calls and there was certainly no monitoring of her in Paris as there was strong evidence the British Authorities had no way of knowing she was in Paris at the time of the accident. Further evidence that discredited Tomlinson's claims was found in drafts of a book he was writing about his time in MI6 before he was jailed in 1998 for breaching the Official Secrets Act. The first draft of the book, dating from 1996, referred to the 1992 memo proposing assassination and contained none of the detail about a staged car crash in a tunnel. However, a later draft of the book from late 1997 had the same reference to the memo but contained the added car crash detail. Operation Paget regarded it as no coincidence that this detail appeared after news of how Diana died was in the public domain. The inquiry concluded by dismissing Tomlinson's claims as an embellishment. It went on to comment that this embellishment is largely responsible for giving rise to the theories Diana was murdered.

Relationship with Dodi Fayed

One of the main motives which have been advanced for alleged murder include suggestions Diana was pregnant with Dodi Fayed's child and the couple were about to get engaged. The alleged dislike of the idea of a non-Christian within the British Royal Family meant such a relationship between the mother of the future king and a prominent Egyptian Muslim would not be tolerated. Mohammed Fayed made the assertion in television interviews that the couple were going to announce their engagement on the Monday after the accident: 1 September 1997. Operation Paget commented that an announcement of such magnitude from the Princess of Wales would have been a substantial media event of worldwide interest and would have required much preparation. No evidence that any such preparation had been made was found. However, evidence has shown that Dodi did purchase a ring from Alberto Repossijewellers on the day of their deaths. This ring was from a range of engagement rings offered by the jeweller. Whether or not it was intended to be an engagement ring for Dodi to present to Diana is uncertain, as CCTV footage from the jeweller show Mrs. Repossi casually offering it from her finger to Dodi's assistant, Claude Roulet, after he went back to attempt to find a ring Dodi had seen in the Repossis' shop in Monaco. The statements of Mohammed Fayed and the Repossis were contradicted by the statements of Claude Roulet, a shop assistant, and the CCTV. D A few hours before the accident, on the afternoon of 30 August, Diana's journalist friend,Richard Kay received a call on his mobile phone from Diana in which she asked about what was likely to appear in the following day's Sunday papers about her. During this call, she made no mention of any announcement she intended to make. More revealing was the statement given by Diana's eldest sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, who testified that in a phone conversation with Diana on Friday 29 August, Diana spoke about Dodi Fayed in a manner that gave her sister the impression the relationship was on "stony ground".Statements from other friends and confidantes she spoke to in the week before her death including her butler Paul Burrell, her friend Lady Annabel Goldsmith, and her spiritual adviser Rita Rogers were unanimous in stating she was firm about not wanting to get engaged or married to anyone at that point in her life. Her former private secretary, Patrick Jephson, said to the BBC in reaction to the publication of the Operation Paget Report in December 2006 that her facial expression in the CCTV footage of her at the Paris Ritz on her final evening with Dodi Fayed was one she would wear when she was disgruntled with a situation.CCTV images released on October 6 taken just minutes before their deaths, show a relaxed Diana and Dodi affectionately holding hands. The inquiry interviewed Hasnat Khan, a Muslim heart surgeon of Pakistani origin based in London, who had a relationship with Diana for almost two years, from September 1995 until July 1997. Diana had even explored the possibility of marriage with him. This had been met with no opposition from the Royal Family and Prince Charles had given it his blessing. Khan stated that he had received some racist hate mail from members of the public because of the relationship but he had no reason to take what was said in this hate mail seriously. He also stated that he felt the relationship was not opposed by either the Royal Family or any other branch of the British Government including the security services. Paul Burrell stated that Diana was still not over her break-up with Khan at the time of her death. It was also pointed out that Dodi and Diana had only first met each other just under seven weeks before the accident, at Mohammed Fayed's villa in St. Tropez on 14 July, meaning there were only 47 days from their first meeting until the night of the accident. Of those days, their schedules permitted them to be together for an absolute maximum of 35 days. From analysis of Diana's actual movements, it is likely they had only spent approximately 23 days together before the accident.

Pregnancy

In January 2004, the former coroner of The Queen's Household, Dr. John Burton, said (in an interview with The Times) that he attended a post-mortem examination of the Princess's body at Fulham mortuary, where he personally examined her womb and found her not to be pregnant. In an effort to prove the assertions made by Mohammed Fayed, Operation Paget had scientific tests carried out on pre-transfusion blood found in the footwell of the seat in the wrecked Mercedes the Princess of Wales occupied at the time of the accident. This blood was found to have no trace of the hCG hormone associated with pregnancy. The inquiry also extensively interviewed friends of Diana's who were in close contact with her in the weeks leading up to her death. The evidence obtained from these witnesses was of a very sensitive nature and most of it was not included in Operation Paget's criminal investigation report. However, it was reported that friends said she was in her normal menstrual cycle and there was evidence she was using contraception. Her friend, Rosa Monckton, said in an interview to a BBC documentary on the conspiracy theories in December 2006 that Diana had her period while on holiday with her about ten days before she died. Further evidence that disproved the pregnancy allegation was provided by Myriah Daniels who was a holistic healer who travelled aboard Mohammed Fayed's yacht ‘Jonikal’ on the second cruise she went on with him and his son Dodi at the end of August 1997. She had known Dodi Fayed since the late 1980s and travelled with him, often providing him with regular treatment. She provided the following statement to the Operation Paget investigators: ‘I have been asked whether or not Diana was pregnant. I can say with one hundred per cent certainty that she was not pregnant. I will explain how I can be so sure of this fact. Firstly, she told me herself that she was not pregnant. Secondly, when you have the years of experience that I have of caring for women’s bodies there are many indications as to whether or not a woman is pregnant. It is incomprehensible to me that Diana would have allowed me to carry out such an invasive treatment [deep massage] on her stomach and intestines if she thought she was pregnant…… ‘I have worked with women in the past, from prior to conception, through the full term of a pregnancy and I am familiar with what a pregnant body feels like even in its early stages, as well as the things that women would normally say to me about their pregnancy, no matter what stage it’s in.‘…This is a very sensitive issue for me to discuss but I know for a fact she wasn’t pregnant because she told me she wasn’t and through the course of my work on her body I found no indications to show that she was. If there were any chance that she were pregnant, she definitely did not know about it herself. This is supported by a direct conversation I had with Diana on board the ‘Jonikal’.‘ Mohammed Fayed's persistence in asserting Diana was pregnant led him to get members of his staff to tell the media that on their final day together, Diana and his son had visited a villa he owned in Paris with a view to choosing a room "for the baby". While the couple had indeed visited the villa, the circumstances of the visit were exaggerated to say it lasted two hours and was in the presence of a prominent Italian interior designer. A security guard at the villa, Reuben Murrell, felt uncomfortable about lying about the matter and sold his story to The Sun stating the visit lasted just under thirty minutes and was not in the company of any interior designer. He provided stills from CCTV to prove this and said he had been in the presence of Diana and Dodi for the entirety of their visit and there was no conversation about them coming to live at the villa. He later resigned from Mohammed Fayed's employment and initiated an employment tribunal for constructive dismissal after Fayed had successfully sued him for breach of contract because of the CCTV images he supplied to The Sun. Senior members of Fayed's staff made derogatory comments about Murrell and Trevor Rees-Jones in their statements to Operation Paget. In 2004, a Channel 4 documentary, The Diana Conspiracy, refuting the conspiracy theories claimed the butler at the villa who gave an interview to the ITV documentary Diana: Secrets Behind the Crash in June 1998 who claimed to have shown the couple around with a view to them living there wasn't even present at the villa on the day as he was on vacation.

Embalming of the body

Mohamed Fayed alleged that Diana's body was deliberately embalmed soon after her death to ensure that any pregnancy test at post-mortem would produce a false result.Operation Paget found that 31 August 1997 was a very hot day in Paris. Diana's body had been stored in an empty room adjacent to the emergency room where she had been treated at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital as the mortuary was on the other side of the hospital grounds and some distance away. Dry ice and air conditioning units were placed in the room to keep it cool but appeared to have little success.Diana's two sisters and Prince Charles were scheduled to view the body later that afternoon before bringing it back to the United Kingdom, President Jacques Chirac and his wife also wished to pay their respects. This meant there was very little time to prepare the body for viewing and it was clearly unacceptable to present Diana's body to her family and the President of France in its then state. Faced with this situation, the hospital staff decided to press ahead with embalming with only verbal authority from Madame Martine Monteil, the local superintendent of police, who assured Jean Monceau "that everything would be in order". Under French law, paperwork is required to be completed before undertaking the embalming of any body likely to be subject to a post-mortem. This paperwork was completed but only after the embalming had been carried out, giving rise to allegations of suspicious circumstances. This comes despite there being no way the hospital staff could have known whether or not Diana was pregnant as a pregnancy test would have been irrelevant to her post crash treatment and accordingly was not carried out.

A bright flash

An alternative explanation for the cause of the crash has been reports of a bright white flash just before the car entered the tunnel, blinding the driver. Richard Tomlinson made this allegation in media interviews and claimed it was consistent with eyewitness testimony. Operation Paget investigated Tomlinson's claim that the use of a powerful strobe light to blind helicopter pilots formed part of MI6 agents' training in the early 1990s and it was apparent this tactic had been used to facilitate the murder of Diana. The police found that such a tactic never, at any time, formed part of MI6 training. The detail of eyewitness testimony was thoroughly reviewed and Operation Paget officers succeeded in uncovering two new witnesses. The police found that only one eyewitness at the scene of the crash, François Levistre, made a clear, specific reference to seeing a bright flash. He claimed to have seen it in his rear-view mirror and recounted other elements of what he saw in considerable detail while he was negotiating the difficult bend out of the tunnel, a task which would have required his full attention on the road in front of him. Crucially, however, his testimony was directly contradicted by his then-wife, who sat in the passenger seat next to him. Television documentaries produced by Channel 4 in 2004 and the BBC in 2006 both raised the issue of Levistre's prior criminal record for offences involving dishonesty. Other eyewitness testimony made little reference to the appearance of any inexplicable flashes at the crash site. Several witnesses who would be expected to have seen a blinding flash made no reference to one. In any event, the detailed crash reconstruction revealed that the chain of events that led to the car unavoidably colliding with the pillar started well before it was at the mouth of the tunnel where the flash is alleged to have been discharged. Furthermore, a strobe light of the type that was alleged to have been used is so powerful that a flash emitted from it would have been bright enough to illuminate a very wide area. It would have likely blinded not only Henri Paul, but also the driver of the white Fiat Uno, the pursuing paparazzi and witnesses standing at the road side. The Operation Paget report concluded the alleged flash did not happen. However, eye witness Brian Anderson, an American tourist says that he saw a bright flash too.

A white Fiat Uno and James Andanson

Analysis of the wreckage of the Mercedes revealed it had glancing contact with a white Fiat Uno car which left traces of paint on the Mercedes bodywork but extensive attempts by the French police to find the vehicle involved failed. The essence of the allegations made by Mohammed Fayed were the white Fiat Uno was used by the "security services" to block the road in front of the Mercedes, causing it to swerve and thereby crash into the side of the tunnel. Fayed further alleged that the Fiat Uno involved was owned by a French photojournalist named Jean-Paul James Andanson who had photographed Diana while she was at his villa in St. Tropez in July 1997. Andanson's death in May 2000, Fayed claimed, was either due to guilt over what he had done or because he was assassinated by the French or British security services to silence him. Operation Paget claimed that the white Fiat Uno he owned was in an unroadworthy condition, being nine years old at the time with 370,000 km on the clock (suggesting that the little car had been driven 27,000 miles per annum) and had not been maintained for several years before the death of Diana. He traded it in part exchange with a Fiat dealership near his home in November 1997 for a new car. Operation Paget concluded it extremely unlikely because of the car's condition and the fact Andanson had so openly disposed of it that it was the one at the scene of the accident in Paris. French police examined James Andanson's car as part of their effort to trace the one that had come into contact with the Mercedes with a view to prosecuting the driver for failing to render assistance. They reached the same conclusion Operation Paget investigators were to, seven years later. The French police spent a year after the accident searching for the vehicle and eliminated over 4000 white Fiat Unos from their inquiry. Operation Paget decided it would be unlikely renewed enquiries would identify the vehicle involved as such a long period had elapsed since the accident. It concluded the threat of prosecution for an imprisonable offence probably deterred the driver from coming forward at the time.

Possible suicide

James Andanson died in May 2000. The official verdict was suicide. His body was found in a black, burnt-out BMW in a forest in the south of France, the doors were locked - with no sign of the car keys. Andanson's death was attributed to problems in his private life and evidence was uncovered from his friends and associates that he had talked of suicide long before the death of Diana and he had even mentioned details of the social circumstances in which he would take his life and the method by which he would do it. Their testimony was consistent with the way Andanson actually took his life. The Paget report states that when the car was found, Andanson's body was in the driver's seat of the car, his head was detached and lay between the front seats. There was also a hole in his left temple. The French pathologist concluded this was caused by the intense heat of the fire rather than, for example, a bullet wound. Operation Paget found no evidence Andanson was known to any security service and, contrary to Fayed's claims, his death was thoroughly investigated by French police. (Although the whereabouts of the car keys has never been explained). A break-in at his former workplace in June 2000 alleged to have been carried out by security services was found to be unconnected to his death as no items related to him were stolen. The break-in was investigated by French police who to this day have not found the criminals responsible.

CCTV images

The absence of CCTV images showing the Mercedes' journey from the hotel to the crash site has been frequently cited as evidence of an organized conspiracy. In a submission to the Minister for Justice, Scotland for Public Inquiry in February 2003, Mohammed Fayed stated that there were approximately 10 video cameras on the route taken by the Mercedes, including one on the entrance to the tunnel itself, yet there are no recordings from any of these cameras for the night in question. In December 2006, The Independent newspaper published an article stating there were more than 14 CCTV cameras in the Pont de l'Alma underpass, yet none have recorded footage of the fatal collision. Judge Hervé Stéphan was appointed as Examining Magistrate in this case on 2 September 1997. On that day, by Judicial Order, he tasked the Brigade Criminelle with identifying all video and photographic images along the route taken by the Mercedes. Lieutenant Eric Gigou of the Brigade Criminelle led the team that carried out that work, initially by retracing the route several times and drawing up a list of possible locations. His report showed that the team identified ten locations of CCTV cameras. None of these had any images relevant to the inquiry, since they were principally security cameras facing the entrances to buildings. Most of the cameras were not maintained by the City of Paris: the owners of the buildings to which they were attached operated them privately. There was a traffic-monitoring camera above the underpass in the Place de l’Alma itself but this was under the control of la Compagnie de Circulation Urbaine de Paris (Paris Urban Traffic Unit). That department closed down at about 11 p.m., had no night duty staff and made no recordings. Officers in the Police Headquarters Information and Command Centre could continue to view the pictures shown by the traffic camera in real time but could not control it. There would be no reason for those in the overnight control room in Paris to be viewing that camera in particular, before the crash. The subject of the CCTV cameras is dealt with in Chapter 5 of the Operation Paget report. It was also found that a photograph that was published in a book by David Cohen 'Diana, Death of a Goddess' and captioned as having been taken just before the car entered the tunnel was in fact taken by a photographer as the car left the back of the Paris Ritz.

Seatbelt

There was some media discussion in April 2006 suggesting that Diana was a faithful seat belt user and therefore the fact that both her and Dodi's belts either failed or were not used was sinister and may suggest sabotage. Other sources question if she did in fact use her belt all the time, as suggested. "What is certain is that she was not wearing a seat belt and this made things worse. We would like to think that if she had been wearing a seat belt, we'd have been able to save her," said Prof. Andre Lienhart, who reviewed the emergency services' response for the French government investigation of the incident. CNN did an analysis of the crash and concluded that injuries would have been minor had the occupants been wearing seat belts. In 2005, the Daily Express published an article claiming that the Mercedes had been stolen prior to the crash and altered to render the seat belts dysfunctional. This alteration had allegedly been carried out by the DST working in co-operation with MI5 and MI6. In this version of events, the car crash was then caused by a bright flash of light aimed at Henri Paul from a passing white Fiat Uno. Analysis of the wreckage of the car after its repatriation to England in 2005 by a Forensic Accident Investigator from the Transport Research Laboratory of thirty-five years experience on behalf of Operation Paget found that all the seatbelts were in good working order with the exception of the right rear one which was for the seat Diana occupied. Follow up enquiries with French investigators found that they had declared all the seatbelts operational at an examination in October 1998, suggesting the damage to this seatbelt took place after the accident. The first call to the emergency services switchboard was logged at 12.26 a.m. The SAMU ambulance carrying the Princess arrived at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital at 2.06 a.m. This length of time has prompted much conspiracy-related comment. The period between the crash and the arrival at the hospital needs to take into account the following: the time taken for emergency services to arrive; the time taken by the Sapeurs-Pompiers de Paris to remove the Princess from the damaged car; and the actual journey time from the crash site to the hospital. Police Officers Sébastien Dorzee and Lino Gagliadorne were the first emergency officials to arrive at the scene at around 12:30 a.m. Sergeants Xavier Gourmelom and Philippe Boyer of the Sapeurs-Pompiers arrived at around 12:32 a.m. Doctor Jean-Marc Martino, a specialist in anaesthetics and intensive care treatment and the doctor in charge of the SAMU ambulance, arrived at around 12:40 a.m. The Princess was removed from the car at 1:00 a.m. She then went into cardiac arrest. Following external cardiopulmonary resuscitation the Princess of Wales’s heart started beating again. She was moved to the SAMU ambulance at 1:18 a.m. The ambulance departed the crash scene at 1:41 a.m. and arrived at the hospital at 2:06 a.m.—a journey time of approximately 26 minutes. This included a stop at the Gare d’Austerlitz ordered by Dr Martino because of the drop in the blood pressure of the Princess of Wales and the necessity to deal with it. The ambulance was travelling slowly on his express instructions. The doctor was concerned about the Princess of Wales’s blood pressure and the effects on her medical condition of deceleration and acceleration. The SAMU ambulance carrying the Princess of Wales passed the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital on the Ile de la Cité en route to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. The decision to transfer the Princess to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital was taken by Dr Marc Lejay who was on despatch duty in SAMU Control on that night, in consultation with Dr Derossi, who was at the scene. The Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital was the main reception centre for multiple trauma patients in Paris. The Hôtel-Dieu was not equipped to deal with the injuries the Princess of Wales had sustained. Dr Marc Lejay stated: ‘The Hôtel-Dieu hospital on the ‘Ile de la Cité’ is closer but not equipped with heart surgery teams or neurosurgical teams or teams trained to take patients with multiple injuries.’ Dr Lejay was also aware that Professor Bruno Riou was on duty at the Pitié-Salpêtrière that night and was particularly skilled to treat the Princess of Wales’s injuries. Dr Jean-Marc Martino supported this view.

Conspiracy theories expressed in contemporary art

Diana has been depicted a number of times in contemporary art since her death. Some artworks have referenced the conspiracy theories, as well as paying tribute to Diana's compassion, and acknowledging her perceived victimhood. In July 1999, British artist Tracey Emin, at the height of her Turner Prize fame, created a number of monoprint drawings inspired by the public and private life of Diana for a themed exhibition called Temple of Diana held at The Blue Gallery, London. Among the works was a delicate sketch of a rose drawn next to the phrase, It makes perfect sense to know they killed you. British artist Stella Vine provoked media controversy in 2004 when Charles Saatchi bought Hi Paul can you come over I'm really frightened (2003), a painting by her of Diana, Princess of Wales. The work's title came from the thick red text painted across the canvas, a reference to Diana's butler Paul Burrell. Vine painted as many as 30 paintings of Diana, having become fascinated by conspiracy theories into the Princess' tragic car crash which she had read on the Internet. Vine destroyed many of these paintings soon after they were created. She put them in a skip as she didn't have enough space to dry nor store the wet paintings. The only one she kept was later added to Saatchi's collection. Vine said she was upset that some people, including her relatives, didn't like her image of Diana, as she believe it was not a disrespectful picture but it was in fact a self portrait as much as depiction of Diana: "The picture is about two women. One who lived in Kensington Palace. And the other who lives down the Whitecross Street. "I look at the picture," says Vine, "and I also see myself."" In 2005, a new Vine painting of Diana, Murdered, pregnant and embalmed (2005), was bought by singer George Michael for £25,000, reported in The Sun newspaper which condemned it as "sick".

Conspiracy theories in other media

The Murder of Princess Diana, a book written by British author Noel Botham, was published on 28 February 2007 (almost 10 years after her death) and alleged that Diana had been deliberately killed. It was aired on American television on 25 August that year - just six days before the 10th anniversary of Diana's death.

Unlawful Killing, a British documentary film about the deaths of Diana and Dodi, was premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2011. It was directed by Keith Allen and funded by Mohamed Al-Fayed. It contains allegations that Prince Philip was a psychopath in the mould of British serial killer Fred West, and orchestrated the murder of Diana and Dodi, and that the Queen was a "gangster in a tiara". It also alleges that Diana's life could have been saved had she been taken to hospital quickly and efficiently, and condemns the inquest into her death for failing to investigate why this action was not taken. It perpetuates the long-standing allegation by Al-Fayed that the Royal Family was opposed to Diana's relationship with Dodi due to his religion. The film will not be shown in British cinemas due to laws on libel and contempt. This film sparked outrage at the festival.

A call to arms to all anti-NWO activist: Resist royal cyber-bullying with all available means [1]

Three days ago, the Rebel Site got taken offline by its hosting firm under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The offense: I had republished the 2011 British documentary “Unlawful Killing” produced by Allied Star, a London-based film company owned by Egyptian billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Al-Fayed. The documentary implicates - amongst other things - the British royal family in the murder of the couple and its cover-up.

Youtube and Vimeo had already deleted the video a few weeks earlier, forcing me to host it directly on the Rebel Site. Two emails sent to me shortly after by the lawyers of my hosting firm unfortunately got intercepted by the spam filter. In those emails they advised me that they had received a complaint by a London based law firm, claiming the hosting of the video was in breach of their client’s copyrights. Since I didn’t receive the emails I obviously couldn’t comply with their request, forcing my hosting company of 7.5 years to disable the site.

Grudgingly, I deleted the video as demanded to get the site back online as soon as possible. However, I sent a letter back to the lawyers, with a 10 days deadline to provide written evidence that the plaintiff’s law firm was acting on behalf of the copyright owner, Allied Star. I also sent an email to Mohamed Al-Fayed, asking for permission to publish the film. The reply of his office was swift. It confirmed that they had requested the London law firm to make me take down the video. The only reason they gave was that the film had been taken off the market.

It becomes clear, when watching the documentary, that Dodi’s father deeply loved his son and was shattered by his death. Why would he spend millions to produce and promote a documentary on the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and shortly later take it off the market without giving much reason? The only explanation that makes sense is that he has been put under enormous pressure to do so. Not only has he been bullied to take his film off the market, but the blackmailers made it his problem to prevent others from republishing it.

Personally, I don’t respond well to bullying. I hate bullies and fight them with all available means. Thankfully I’m not alone. In this case of cyber-bullying, resistance is not only civil duty, but easy. Be warned though! It would be illegal to locate a copy of the “Unlawful Killing” documentary via anyBitTorrent site and distribute it to as many people as possible. It would be illegal to burn CDs and pass them to all your friends. It would be illegal to upload the video to video hosting sites under its own or slightly altered name. And it would be illegal to create a torrent of your own on BitTorrent sites and share it for other people to download. But it is not illegal, to publish this article, share, email and republish it on your blog, and that’s exactly what I’m asking all of my readers to do. Make it go viral.

The documentary the Windsors don’t want you to watch

So let’s go back to the “Unlawful Killing” documentary and see what all the fuss is about. The film starts by showing a letter from Diana, hand-written to her butler, predicting her own violent death. It says, “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car. Brake failure & serious head injury.” Less than two years later her prediction came true.

The documentary next shows numerous people saying that her death was murder. Mohamed Al-Fayed, Dodi’s father, goes even further. He goes on record in the documentary saying that it was a slaughter by the ‘bloody racist’ royal family. He thinks the royal family got his son killed because they were too racist to accept a foreign, Muslim step-father or a Muslim half-brother or half-sister for the future king.

The film maker himself, Keith Allen, points out how “chillingly convenient” it was for the Windsors that the crash happened when it did. Mohamed Al-Fayed describes how Diana, in the two weeks she stayed for a holiday with her sons at his house, was worried that exactly that kind of accident would happened to her as it did shortly after. It would appear that she got warned.

The inquest

The documentary mainly focuses on the massive inquest at the Royal Court of Justice, dismissed by several speakers in the film as a cover up. They criticise that Charles, in spite of being implicated by Diana’s letter as trying to kill her exactly the way she died, wasn’t required to appear as a witness. It talks about how the Royal Court of Justice first sought to conduct the inquest without a jury, an attempt that got only overturned because of public pressure. It questions the impartiality of an inquest conducted at the Royal Court of Justice led by a “coroner” who has sworn his allegiance to the Queen, in a case where members of the royal family are the prime suspects. Not very surprising then for the film maker that the coroner appeared at times to have already made up his mind about the outcome of the inquest, before it had even started. 

The whole point of the inquest was to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding the car crash.

• Was it a pure coincidence that Diana had told many people that she had been warned by a confidential source in the palace, that Prince Philip had plans to deliberately kill her in a car crash, exactly the way she died? 
• Why didn’t the CCTV cameras along the route of the crash car apparently record anything, a ‘coincidence’ the crash shares with the 7/7 London Tube attacks? 
• Were the driver’s blood samples tampered with to make him appear wildly drunk while seeming to be sober? 
• Why were Diana’s phone calls being bugged by the American NSA? 
• Why were Diana’s seat belts jammed on the night of the accident, preventing her from – as she normally would – wearing a seat belt, which probably would have saved her life? 
• Why didn’t the police identify the owners or driver of any of the five other vehicles involved in the crash? 
• And why did it take ambulances 2 hours to transport Diana to the nearest hospital? 

According to the film, the suspicious circumstances didn’t stop there. Even before the end of the medical examination of his body, the French press already published headlines according to which the driver was "as drunk as a pig". That’s in spite of the fact that according to his hotel bill he had only had 2 Ricards, less than a quarter the amount of what French authorities claimed that he had drunk. Road sweepers were allowed by the Police to clean the site of the car crash, within hours of the accident. The film points out the similarity to the case of the Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto, where the site of his murder was hosed down by police almost immediately after the attack, obviously because it is easier to claim it was just an accident if the evidence is washed away.

At the end of the inquest, the jury had heard so much suspicious information that the coroner heading the inquest could not take any risk. In his three day instructions to the jury, he told the jury to ignore the eye-witness statements and forbid the jury to even consider the possibility of murder. The jury, however, ignored the coroners instructions and spent a whole week to carefully examine the evidence for themselves.

The media

The film also examines the negative attitude of the media towards the inquest, obviously considering it to be a waste of time. It was quite common for the journalists observing the inquest to fall asleep or manicure their fingernails instead of paying attention to the witnesses. They were only interested in information confirming the “established consensus”, established before the start of the inquest, that drunk driving and harassment by paparazzi had caused the crash, and ignored all the witness statements contradicting it. Any different view was regarded as “odd” and “conspiracy theory”. Part of the problem, according to the film, was the fact that it was the royal correspondents, not legal journalists who were covering the inquest, in spite of the fact that Diana no longer had royal status at the time of her death. You cannot expect impartiality of journalists like the BBC’s royal correspondent, whose job it is solely to “suck up to the royal family” and portray it in the most favourable light possible. But even if they had wanted to, they wouldn’t have understood the detailed evidence or how the establishment was manipulating behind the scenes which and how much evidence they were allowed to see. That’s why they didn’t question, for example, why the Royal Court censored into incomprehensibility letters of Prince Philip written to Diana. The Royal Court went even as far as forbidding close friends of Diana to tell the inquest about deeply hostile letters of Princess Philip written to Diana not long before her death.

The accident itself

The movie then describes the accident itself based on the reports of several witness statements in the inquest. Diana’s powerful Mercedes Benz quickly left the following paparazzi behind. When they entered the tunnel, they were surrounded by 4 motorcycles and a white Fiat Uno. Suddenly a very bright flashlight blinded Diana’s driver, making him lose control and crash head first into a concrete pillar. None of the other vehicles got ever identified. It’s been verified by the French police that none of the vehicles was driven by any of the paparazzi waiting in front of the hotel that night. They have all been accounted for. That didn’t stop the British media though from misrepresenting the inquest’s verdict – in a massive world-wide misinformation campaign led by the BBC - as saying that it was the following paparazzi who caused the crash. What the inquest actually established was that the vehicles surrounding Diana’s car in the tunnel caused the accident.

The ambulance

The most bizarre circumstance of the accident was probably the behaviour of the ambulance. Several ambulances arrived soon at the scene of the accident. Given the time of the day, after midnight, the streets were virtually empty. And yet, it took the ambulance carrying Diana 81 minutes to drive her to the near-by hospital, without making radio contact with the headquarter. That’s on top of the 37 minutes it took the oddly behaving doctor in sole charge of treating Diana, Jean-Marc Martino, to move the still conscious from the undamaged back of her car into the ambulance. If she had received prompt hospital treatment, the expert witnesses at the inquest all agreed, Diana would have survived.

The role of the MI6

The film coughs at the claim by the head of MI6 towards the inquest that his agency has never killed anyone in the past 50 years. It shows former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson, an inquest witness, who has written a book titled “The Big Breach” describing how MI6 had planned to murder the Serbian leader exactly the same way how Diana, Dodi and her driver were killed: making his car crash in a narrow tunnel by flashing a very bright light into the driver’s eyes. The MI6 boss was obviously lying, a view supported in the film by another former senior MI6 agent, Baroness Daphne Park, who clearly states that she’s been involved in murders on behalf of the MI6.

Diana’s campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines

According to the film, MI6 and other secret services had more reason to want Diana dead than just her plan to get married to a Muslim: her highly effective support for the world-wide campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines. Her involvement caused huge anger amongst Western governments and the armament industry. It even caused the British defence minister Nicholas Soames to call Diana on the phone and tell her, “Don’t meddle in things you don’t know anything about. Accidents can happen.”

Diana’s murder happened just three weeks before the Oslo conference to ban anti-personnel mines. Without Diana as the most prominent ambassador of the conference, most of the world’s media no longer bothered to attend. Bill Clinton was the only government leader attending the conference who voted against a world-wide ban on landmines. If Diana had been still alive, he would have to do so while looking into Diana’s eyes. According to the film, many observers believe that’s the real reason why she got killed, but the coroner of the inquest wasn’t interested in that line of thought.

Dodgy autopsy results

The autopsy of the driver, which stated that he was highly drunk, in spite of having had only two Ricards that night and appearing completely sober on the hotel CCTV captured when leaving the hotel, was performed by Professor Dominique Lecomte, a doctor notorious for her involvement in French government cover-ups. Her autopsy was ripped apart by other medical experts as completely incompetent and having made several critical mistakes, as was Dr. Lepin’s result of the blood sample taken of the driver, which was found to have been highly likely tampered with. Professor Lecomte and Dr. Lepin both refused to attend the inquest, after being ordered by the French government to do so to protect the French state’s secrets and interests. When specialist later wanted to examine whether the DNA of the blood samples was identical with that of the driver, they were told by the French government that those samples no longer exist.

Police corruption

Diana had not only spoken to numerous friends about her ex-husband's family planning to kill her in a car accident and mentioned it in a letter to her butler. She had also written a letter to her lawyer about it who passed it on to the police. In spite of her being later killed exactly in the way described in her letter, the chief of police kept the letter concealed for three years, knowingly breaking the law by concealing this devastating evidence. He was rewarded handsomely by the Queen by being made a ‘Lord’.

Not only did the autopsy report make false accusations about the driver’s alcohol level, it even suggested that he was a severe case of alcoholic. The English police tried to support this false claim by searching the driver’s apartment twice for alcohol. The first time they went there, they could only find a bottle of champagne and a ¾ empty bottle of Martini. Unsatisfied with the result they went in again, and this time they found enough alcohol to stock an entire bar.

Diana’s embalmment

In spite of no longer being ‘Royal’ at the time of her death, Diana was embalmed within hours of her death, according to the film, to make it impossible to perform a pregnancy test. Not only were her organs removed and destroyed, but so was the blood sample taken from her at her arrival at the Paris hospital. The film suggests that this was to avoid any suggestion that Muslim blood had entered the royal blood lines.

The Queen's private secretary

Sir Robert Fellowes was the highest ranked representative of the Windsors appearing at the inquest. Under oath, he claimed to have been on holidays for the entire period before and after the accident. Yet, the diary of Tony Blairs’ press secretary Alastair Campbell clearly states that she met Mr Fellowes on several occasions through the period he claimed to have been on holidays. Diana had mentioned to friends before that he was one of the three people she was most afraid of. She believed that Mr Fellowes hated her with a passion and wanted her out of the Royal family. The film suggests that Mr Fellowes had a leading role in the arrangements for her death.

The Fiat Uno

The prime suspect to have caused the crash is the driver of the Fiat Uno which was seen by numerous witnesses. Neither the English nor the French police was apparently able to identify him, and yet one of the best known paparazzi, James Andanson, with connections to secret services, drove exactly that kind of car. Andandon who made a fortune selling pictures of British royalties and other celebrities to the media, lived in France and was known to have followed Diana and Dodi in their last holiday before the accident. He was not part of the paparazzi crowd waiting in front of the Ritz hotel owned by Dodi’s father. When interviewed by French police about his whereabouts, he made contradictory statements, as did his wife and son who served as his alibis. In spite of these circumstances, the investigation against him was dropped and the search for the Fiat Uno ended without result. The inquest made no further attempt to establish who was driving the implicated car.

In 2000, Andason was found dead in his blazing car on a Ministry of Defense owned field outside Montpellier. He had no car keys with him and the two firemen who found him had seen two bullet holes in his skull. The French police however decided that he had committed suicide. The film maker comments that you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to find it hard to believe that a man shot himself in the head twice and then set his car on fire.

Royal family

The last third of the film goes in full attack on the Windsors. It criticises the huge cost to British tax payers, their racism towards non-Whites and their initial strong support for Hitler. It accuses the Queen mother, her husband, as well as Prince Philip and his sisters to have been highly supportive of Nazi Germany, at least initially. It goes on to ask why the British people still tolerates the monarchy. It accuses British officials of corruption because they were more loyal to the monarch than to the people and care more about earning a knighthood than obeying the law. The film goes even as far as calling the British royal family mafia-style gangsters.

Later in the film Prince Philip is quoted as saying that if reincarnation existed he would like to be reborn as a deadly virus, so he could do something about over-population. This quote must be seen in the context of Prince Philip being the highest ranked Scottish Rite Freemason, a secret society known to aim for a ‘big cull’ reducing mankind to a ‘sustainable level’ of 500 million, that is a reduction of 93%.

The most controversial part of the documentary is an interview with leading British clinical psychologist Oliver James, describing Prince Philip as someone without any internal sense of right or wrong. According to James, Prince Philip is completely selfish and does not care about anybody else. In his expert opinion, Prince Philip is on par with notorious psychopathic mass-murderers.

Summary

The main film very convincingly argues that – in the light of the long list of suspicious circumstances and cover-ups – it would be too much of a coincidence that Diana got killed exactly at a time when Western secret services and armament manufacturers were infuriated about her anti-personnel landmine campaign and the Windsors about the prospect of a Muslim step-father and Muslim siblings to the future British King.

My own first reaction, when I heard about Diana’s death, was to say that it was staged by the MI6. Like Mohamed al-Fayed and other people in the documentary, I suspected that the British royalties were too big bigots to let her get married to a Muslim man from the Middle-East. What I didn’t know back then was that Diana’s mother was a born Rothschild, making her and her children Jews according to Jewish law. I’m more inclined now to think that her murder was performed by Mossad, not so much to stop her anti-personnel mine campaigning or to avoid a Muslim step-father and Muslim siblings to the future British King, but to prevent Diana from converting to Islam, which she would have to get married to a Muslim man. This obviously would have spoiled the endless Jewish bragging over the future British King being a Jew.

Royals Ordered MI6 to Murder Princess Diana by NEWSMAKER

Shocking revelations in this latest volume include:

• Evidence which demonstrates that the top three MI6 officers in Paris were replaced by more senior officers in the days immediately prior to the Paris crash
• Evidence of MI6 involvement in assassination plots against two high-profile world leaders in the 18 month period leading up to the Diana assassination
• Evidence exposing Rosa Monckton – wife of former newspaper editor, Dominic Lawson – as an MI6 agent who spied on Princess Diana
• Evidence that the royal Way Ahead Group – chaired by the Queen – played a significant role in the assassination ofPrincess Diana
• Evidence revealing that British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had prior knowledge of the assassination.

John Morgan says that "at the 2007-08 inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed, the judge, Lord Justice Scott Baker, went to great lengths to prevent the jury from being able to piece together all the evidence that could have allowed them to understand the roles played by MI6 and the royal family in the deaths".

The author adds that the evidence he has uncovered in Who Killed Princess Diana? shows that "MI6 officers lied repeatedly under oath during their cross-examinations at the inquest. And the royal private secretaries – Robert Fellowes for the Queen and Miles Hunt-Davis for Prince Philip – also lied to cover up the role of the senior members of the royal family in the assassinations."

Morgan continues: "Given the many lies told by the MI6 officers, and the efforts by the royal private secretaries and Scott Baker to suppress and cover-up vital evidence, the jury really had no hope of understanding the role played by both the Secret Intelligence Service and the royal family in the 1997 assassination".

A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest, stated in 2010: "I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the "Magnum Opus' on the crash ... that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed."

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED [2]

Conspiracy Theories

Famous people meeting strange ends is a phenomenon that always seems to bring out the conspiracy theorists. The death of Diana, Princess of Wales is no exception.Here we look at the major conspiracy theories to have  seen the light of day so far. Then come some of your own bizarre thoughts. If you know of any more, let us know. 

- The Big Three Conspiracy Theories: Explained and reviewed

• Faked Death  
• MI6 Killed Di  
• Target Dodi

Your Conspiracy Theories >>

Faked Death

1. Plot

Fed up with the constant intrusions into her private life by the media, Diana, helped by the huge resources of Dodi, arranges a spectacular 'death' from which she can retreat into blissful isolation. One version of the theory claims that the crash was an attempt at a faked death that went horribly wrong.

2. Evidence

a. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones still lives, but testimony from Mercedes auto experts says that it would have been almost impossible for anyone to have survived a crash in the tunnel in a car going at 121 mph. Maybe, as driver Henri Paul's lawyers claim, the car was not going that fast. Maybe the crash was faked by the army-trained Rees-Jones who had previously deposited Di and Dodi elsewhere.

b. Dodi's usual driver was not used. Mystery still surrounds Henri Paul, the security officer who stepped in at the last minute to drive the Mercedes S-280. It took a full two days for his name to be revealed, for instance. Co-workers at the Ritz Hotel say he kept himself to himself and never socialised with them. One version of this conspiracy has it that Paul simply did not exist, another that he was quickly whisked away from the hospital after being declared dead by doctors in cahoots with the Al Fayed family.

c. Just six hours before she died Di let slip to Daily Mail reporter Richard Kray that she was about to withdraw completely from public life.

Likelihood: 2/10

Parts of it sound feasible but what about Di's two children? It is almost inconceivable that she would want to miss out on the rest of their lives. The chances of her coming back to see them without being noticed are surely slim, though plastic surgery permitting it might be prudent to look out for a similarly built 'nanny' appearing on the scene in the future.

MI6 Killed Di

1. Plot

Rogue elements in the British secret service decide that Di is a threat to the throne, and therefore the stability of the state. They take her out.

2. Evidence

a. Recent revelations have shown that there are rogue elements in the secret service who act as more or less autonomous cells. Some of these have been revealed to have a pretty strange view of what constitutes a threat to the state. For instance, they have files on John Lennon, current British Home Secretary (Interior Minister) Jack Straw and they once tried to destabilise the 1970s Labour government. It is not inconceivable that the same agents who believed Lennon was capable of leading revolution also believed Diana was capable of fomenting popular unrest.

b. MI6 is suspected of bugging Diana throughout her years in the Royal limelight, and many believe they were behind the leaking of the 'Squidgygate' phone tapping tapes which damaged her image during the break up with Charles.

c. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones was a former member of the crack Parachute Regiment, one of the most toughest in the British army. He also completed two stints in Northern Ireland and served in the Royal Military Police,just the kind of background that would have seen him come into contact with members of the secret service. Theorists cite the fact Rees-Jones survived the crash as evidence that he was in on the plot to snuff out the Diana threat.

Likelihood: 3/10

Few doubt that the nutters at MI6 are capable of anything but surely even they would have had qualms about bumping off Diana, if only for the reason that her death might bring on the very things they most fear, the drift toward a republican state in the UK, as Charles loses still more popularity.

Did MI6 Kill Diana? We examine the evidence 

Target Dodi

1. Plot

Business enemies of Dodi and his father Mohammed Al Fayed assassinate Dodi, with the death of Di a magnificent cover for their operation.

2. Evidence

Al Fayed has not got to the top without making some serious enemies along the way. The owner of Harrods fought a bitter battle for the top London store some years ago and has also been denied British nationality after question marks were raised about his business practise. His activities have included under the counter payments to Conservative MPs. as his oldest son and heir, Dodi would be an obvious target for anyone wanting to settle a score with Al Fayed.

Likelihood: 1/10

With Di involved, the police operation is likely to be one of the biggest in Paris history so any assassin would be taking one hell of a risk by cutting the break cable, say, of Dodi's car. Then again, the day of the Jackal is a Paris story.

Your conspiracy Theories (From our archive)

Your conspiracy Theories (From our archive)

LondonNet mistress of

Share on Google Plus

About octadandy