31Aug1997 - Who Killed Princess Diana?

With the creeping in of fascist/far-right military political killings in the UK this section looks at strange deaths of police, forces personnel & killings such as that of Diana Princess of Wales made to 'look like' an accident who was assassinated because she challenged the cult of secrecy and manipulation at Britain's crooked Royal Family.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

02Jun20 - Paris London Connection The Assassination of Princess Diana by John Morgan https://www.bilderberg.org/sis.htm#morgan
Extracts from
Paris London Connection
The Assassination of Princess Diana
by John Morgan (2012)
Shining Bright Publishing
ISBN 978-0-9807407-5-2

A Threatening Phone Call From Sir Nicholas Soames

P 38 PARIS-LONDON CONNECTION

Then during the following month - February 1997 - Diana received a threatening phone call at her home in Kensington Palace. Her friend Simone Simmons was there:

"I was with Diana in her sitting-room at KP when she beckoned me over and held her large old-fashioned black telephone away from her ear so that I could hear. I heard a voice telling her she should stop meddling with things she didn't understand or know anything about, and spent several minutes trying to tell her to drop her [anti-landmines] campaign. Diana didn't say much, she just listened, and I clearly heard the warning: 'You never know when an accident is going to happen.' [Diana] went very pale.

The moment she put the phone down we started talking about what he had said. I tried to be reassuring which was not easy - she was clearly very worried ....

"When 1 listened into her conversation, with its apparent warning ... I was not sure [of her safety] any more. The conversation frightened Diana, and it certainly scared me."

Diana told Simmons that the caller was the Minister of the Armed Forces and close long-time friend of Prince Charles, Nicholas Soames - the same person who just 14 months earlier had accused Diana on national TV of being in "the advanced stages of paranoia".

Diana was not deterred and said to Simmons: "It doesn't matter what happens to me. We must do something. We cannot allow this slaughter to continue."

Then following the Soames phone call, Diana sought out a way of secretly recording her story. On March 7 a former BBC cameraman met with Diana at Kensington Palace and recorded the first of 7 videos. By the time the recordings were complete - later in March - there was 12 hours of footage. She addressed her 17 years of mistreatment at the hands of the royal family and also problems within the family, including her concerns regarding the relationship between Prince Charles and his senior valet, Michael Fawcett.




Was Soames Right? Could A Landmines Ban Get You Killed?
P 39 PARIS-LONDON CONNECTION

Princess Diana spent months building up an anti-landmine dossier, made up of sourced information and her own handwritten notes. As a precaution she kept it in her friend Elsa Bowkers locked safe. Then in June - after the dossier had grown to be several inches thick - Diana took a copy of it, which she gave to Simmons for safe-keeping. Simmons hid "it at the head of [her] bed underneath the mattress".

On 1 May 1997 Tony Blair was installed as UK Prime Minister following a landslide election result in favour of New Labour. With that, Nicholas Soames' party lost power and Britain resolved to sign the upcoming anti-landmine treaty.

Diana delivered a landmark anti-Iandmine speech at the Royal Geographic Society in London on June 12. It was entitled: "Responding to Landmines: A Modern Tragedy and Its Consequences". This was to be Diana's final major address against the proliferation of landmines.

She said:

"The world is too little aware of the waste of life, limb and land which anti-personnel landmines are causing among some of the poorest people on earth ....

"For the mine is a stealthy killer. Long after conflict is ended, its innocent victims die or are wounded singly, in countries of which we hear little. Their lonely fate is never reported. The world, with its many other preoccupations, remains largely unmoved by a death roll of something like 800 people every month - many of them women and children. Those who are not killed outright - and they number another 1,200 a month suffer terrible injuries and are handicapped for life.

"I was in Angola in January with the British Red Cross .... Some people chose to interpret my visit as a political statement. But it was not. I am not a political figure. As I said at the time, and I'd like to reiterate now, my interests are humanitarian. That is why I felt drawn to this human tragedy. This is why I wanted to play down my part in working towards a world-wide ban on these weapons ....

"The human pain that has to be borne is often beyond imagining. '" That is something to which the world should urgently turn its conscience.

"In Angola, one in every 334 members of the population is an amputee. Angola has the highest rate of amputees in the world.

How can countries which manufacture and trade in these weapons square their conscience with such human devastation? ..

"Much ingenuity has gone into making some of these mines.

Many are designed to trap an unwary de-miner. ... 1 reflected, after my visit to Angola, if some of the technical skills used in making mines had been applied to better methods of removing them ....

"These mines inflict most of their casualties on people who are trying to meet the elementary needs of life. They strike the wife, or the grandmother, gathering firewood for cooking. They ambush the child sent to collect water for the family ....

"One of the main conclusions 1 reached after this experience: Even if the world decided tomorrow to ban these weapons. this terrible legacy of mines already in the earth would continue to plague the poor nations of the globe. 'The evil that men do, lives after them.'

"And so. it seems to me, there rests a certain obligation upon the rest of us.

"One of my objectives in visiting Angola was to forward the cause of those. like the Red Cross, striving in the name of humanity to secure an international ban on these weapons. Since then. we are glad to see. some real progress has been made. There are signs of a change of heart - at least in some parts of the world. For that we should be cautiously grateful. If an international ban on mines can be secured it means. looking far ahead. that the world may be a safer place for this generation's grandchildren.

"But for this generation in much of the developing world. there will be no relief, no relaxation. The toll of deaths and injuries caused by mines already there, will continue ....

"1 would like to see more done for those living in this 'no man's land'. which lies between the wrongs of yesterday and the urgent needs of today.

"'I think we owe it. I also think it would be of benefit to us. as well as to them. The more expeditiously we can end this plague on Earth caused by the landmine. the more readily can we set about the constructive tasks to which so many give their hand in the cause of humanity."

Just nine days earlier, on Tuesday June 3, Diana had attended an English National Ballet (ENB) performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Albert Hall. This was to be her last visit to the Hall and she was present in her role as ENB patron. At the gala dinner held in the Churchill Hotel following the ballet, Diana was seated next to long-time family friend, Mohamed Al Fayed and his wife, Heini.

During the dinner conversation they discussed the upcoming summer holidays. Diana said she was still working out where to take William and Harry. Mohamed and Heini invited Diana and the boys to join them at their St Tropez villa in July.

Six days later, on Monday the 9th, Diana phoned Michael Cole, Harrods Director of Public Affairs, to find out more detail about the facilities. Then on the Wednesday Diana penned a letter to Mohamed:

"Dear Mohamed, A very special thank you indeed for inviting the boys and I to stay in France next month. Needless to say we are greatly looking forward to it all and we are so grateful to you for giving us this opportunity .... I know we will speak soon, but until then, my love to you all, Diana."

Then on the next day, June 12, Diana delivered the significant anti-landmine speech in London - "how can countries which manufacture and trade in these weapons square their conscience"; "the evil that men do"; "this plague on earth caused by the landmine".

In two short days Princess Diana - who was under the constant surveillance of the British security services - had delivered two powerful messages.

First: to the British Establishment, including the royal family. Second: to the leading arms dealing nations of the western world - the US, UK and France.

On Thursday 12 June 1997 Princess Diana effectively declared war on the armaments industries of the US, UK and France - for even though Britain and France were to sign the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines, it was apparent that Diana would not have stopped at landmines: "my interests are humanitarian - that is why I felt drawn to this human tragedy". As a humanitarian, Diana - after succeeding against landmines - would have sought an end to cluster bombs and other evil - "the evil that men do" - weapons.




Diana Prepares To ‘Shack Up’ With Dodi
P 52 PARIS-LONDON CONNECTION

By the end of this period - before August 15 - Diana and Dodi had plans to live together, and were making preparations to move into Julie Andrews' former Malibu home. They also intended to purchase a property in Paris, where they would live part-time.

On Friday August 15 Diana and Rosa Monckton left London on an Al Fayed jet, headed to Athens. This was the start of the Greek Island cruise, which had been organised by Rosa at the end of June.

After arriving in Greece, Diana and Rosa boarded the Della Grazia, a 22 metre yacht with three crew, which had been chartered by MI6. This vessel was tracked by three much larger super yachts - also chartered by MI6 - the Marala. 59 metres; the Sunrise, 90 metres; and the Sea Sedan. 55 metres. These super yachts provided security, but also cruised about acting as media decoys.

While Diana and Rosa drifted around the Aegean Sea for five days in the smallish Della Grazia, the world's media searched doggedly for the princess. MI6 were so keen to protect Diana's location that they arranged for a decoy article to be published in London, stating that "the two were staying on the remote island of Inousses" - across the other side of the Aegean. But when reporters, including Greek journalists, flocked to that island, Diana was nowhere to be seen and there was also no evidence she had been there.

This gave Rosa five days of peace and quiet alone with Diana - time to cover plenty of territory on plans and intentions and to seek any other intelligence that was relevant for her spy-masters.

Meanwhile Dodi was making arrangements for the next cruise with Diana and on August 18 made a critical call to Frank Klein, president of the Ritz Hotel, Paris. Klein recalled later: Dodi told "me that he intended to come to Paris at the end of the month" accompanied by his "friend", Diana.

US intelligence - NSA, which was monitoring the couple's phone conversations - was then made aware that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed would be visiting Paris around the end of August. Not only that, but it would have been evident that there would be trips between the Ritz Hotel - an AI Fayed asset - and Dodi’s Paris apartment. During the late July weekend when Diana and Dodi had stayed in Paris, both the apartment and hotel had been visited and there had been trips back and forth.

After Frank Klein received the August 18 Dodi communication, his first call was to the Ritz Paris, to his second in command, Claude Roulet. Klein expected to continue his holiday in Antibes beyond the end of the month - it therefore became Roulet's responsibility to ensure the hotel and staff were readied for the anticipated arrival of the VIPs. Roulet passed on the information to his Ritz security head, Henri Paul, but also notified his intelligence handler. This confirmed the news the agencies had already received, courtesy of the NSA surveillance operation.

From this point on, MI6 - working in conjunction with the CIA and the French intelligence agency, DGSE - set about planning to carry out one of the most significant events of the 20th century, the assassination of Princess Diana.





MI6 Begin To Plan Princess Diana’s Assassination
P 53 PARIS-LONDON CONNECTION

It was under a month since MI6 had received the nod from senior royals - and now an opportunity to accomplish an extremely deniable operation had opened up. Very close to the chauffeur's route between the Ritz Hotel and Dodi Fayed's apartment lay the Alma Tunnel - a potentially dangerous traffic spot when negotiated at speed. All it required was to prevent the target vehicle, travelling down the riverside expressway, from exiting after the Alexandre III tunnel and it would then be forced into the Alma. With a plan to remove any back-up car, add chasing powerful motorbikes, a strobe light and a waiting vehicle, MI6 began to formulate how this operation could be brought about.

Within hours the top MI6 officer in France, Eugene Curley, received instructions that he was to be heavily involved in orchestrating the assassination of the extremely popular princess. He baulked at this and, despite his 16 years of loyalty in the organisation, refused to participate.

Curley had to be replaced and quickly. Sherard Cowper-Coles, with 20 years' experience, had recently completed the handover of Hong Kong back to the Chinese. He was still based at MI6 headquarters in London. MI6 Chief David Spedding immediately transferred Cowper-Coles into Paris as the replacement head of France. He pulled Curley back into London and a deal was made - Curley could stay in MI6 so long as he would testify on oath to any later investigation that he was still France's MI6 head at the time of the assassination.

Soon after arriving in Paris, Cowper-Coles, comprehending the complexity of the operation, called for more staff.

[These included Valerie Caton, David Spedding and Richard Spearman. Cowper Coles had a team of at least eight MI6 officers in the Paris embasst most of which would not have known the precise goal of the operation.]





The Crash: Diana scores 14/15 on Glasgow Trauma Rating scale
P 98 PARIS-LONDON CONNECTION

SAMU had received notification of the crash by 12.25. Dr Arnaud Derossi was on duty as the medical dispatcher and he took the calls.

A SAMU ambulance with Dr Jean-Marc Martino aboard left at 12.28 a.m. - two minutes before the Fire Service ambulances – but didn't arrive until 12.40 - eight minutes after the Fire Service. The ambulance left from the Necker Hospital which was just 2.3 km from the Alma Tunnel. It took 12 minutes to travel 2.3 km - an average speed of 11.5 km/h (7 mph). Martino appears to have stopped on the way to receive final instructions from his MI6 handler, because Diana had survived.

One of MI6's key strategies was to delay treatment. Mailliez had expertise but no equipment. The Fire Service had the equipment but was under orders to not send a doctor ahead of SAMU - and to wait until SAMU arrived before administering any treatment to Diana. SAMU delayed their arrival until 12.40 a.m., 17 minutes after the crash.

All this meant that nothing much was done - including no blood pressure test - for Diana until Dr Martino arrived at 12.40 a.m. And Dr Martino was working for MI6, so he also made sure very little was done - in fact Martino's actions were mostly detrimental to Diana's condition. Martino did not treat Diana - he mistreated her.

MI6 had complete control of the medical treatment of Princess Diana, right from 12.25 a.m. when Frederic Mailliez arrived in the Alma Tunnel, until 2.06 a.m. - when Martino delivered her to the hospital.

On arrival, at 12.40, Martino's team started working with Trevor Rees-Jones, who was assessed as being in the most critical condition. Martino told investigators in 1998: "I asked my crew to take care of the front right hand seat passenger [Rees-Jones], who seemed the more seriously injured of the two, whilst calling for back up from the Mobile Emergency Service [SAMU] in order to attend to the second victim [Diana]."

This decision might sound logical, but it had the effect of further delaying Diana's treatment.

Then at 12.43 the Fire Service's Dr Fuilla arrived. The logical move then would have been for Fuilla's team to treat Diana - because Martino was already working with Rees-Jones.

But that is not what occurred. Instead, Martino's team from working on Rees-Jones to Diana - and Fuilla took over the treatment of Rees-Jones.

These decisions enabled Diana's treatment to be delayed another three minutes, whilst Martino - and MI6 officers - were able to still maintain complete control over Diana's treatment.

Xavier Gourmelon, a first aid instructor with the Fire Service, told police that Diana said:

"My God, what's happened?"

According to the SAMU ambulance report Diana scored 14 out of 15 on the Glasgow Coma Rating Scale. Tom Treasure, the inquest cardio-thoracic expert, later said:

"14 out of 15 is very good .... It is a scale of prediction of head injury and it was very favourable."

This is further medical evidence contradicting Mailliez's account that Diana was unconscious.

It was however obvious to the medical people attending the crash scene that Diana had been involved in a very serious high-speed crash impact - and hadn't been wearing a seat belt.

Dr Mailliez later said: "I was just suspecting a brain damage or a chest damage because of the high-energy accident." Dr Martino also made an early assessment: "Because of what happened at the scene, that is to say a high-speed accident, the technical wherewithal capable of operating in thoracic, cardiac and abdominal regions was needed."

In other words, it was evident from the beginning that, although Diana looked okay on the outside, there would be some internal damage from having been involved in this violent crash.

This then meant that Martino understood Diana required treatment in a hospital - a place with "the technical wherewithal capable of operating" .

From that point on - soon after arriving at 12.40 - Martino, had he been interested in saving Diana, would have been trying to get her to a hospital as soon as possible. Yet that is not what occurred - Diana didn't arrive at La Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital until 2.06 a.m.

It took Martino 1 hour 26 minutes to deliver her to a hospital. Then she died six minutes after arriving.

It is a shocking story.

Dr Arnaud Derossi, who was operating the phones at SAMU base, took the initial notification calls and dispatched Martino's ambulance to the scene. He also operated as an MI6 agent on the night. Derossi's SAMU colleague, Dr Marc Lejay, was asleep at the time of the crash. He was not involved with MI6. .

Derossi woke Lejay, who then took over as medical dispatcher - and Derossi left SAMU control in his car at 12.42, arriving at the crash scene eight minutes later, at 12.50. Just like Martino, he also probably spoke with his MI6 handler along the way.

At 12.43 Martino called Lejay with a situation report: "Rear passenger, would seem an arm, the right arm, completely turned backwards. We are trying to sedate and initial treatment. Over." That rear passenger was Princess Diana.

Martino, however, later told French investigators that his initial assessment was much more than that: "She herself had a facial injury, frontal according to the journey log, and was trapped with her right arm bent to the rear, at first glance possibly with a fracture in the upper third. However, she may have had all sorts of other internal injuries, abdominal or thoracic, which might decompensate at any time."

The idea behind calling base with assessments is so the receiving hospital can be chosen and preparations made to have the right staff - doctors and specialists - available on arrival. This is particularly the case for a VIP, as Princess Diana was.

Or Martino failed to inform the base of his initial assessment that Diana had a facial injury and could be expected to have "internal injuries, abdominal or thoracic". Instead he lied, and only told Lejay about a likely arm injury.

He mentioned an injured arm but omitted potentially life-threatening internal injuries.

This was good news for the SAMU base. They had a crash involving a British princess on their hands, but the only injury was to her arm.

It meant there was no need to rush Diana to hospital and there was no expected requirement to have any particular specialists on hand.

But even more important, it reduced the pressure on Martino - it meant he would not have the base breathing down his neck and it strengthened his independent control of the scene. SAMU were in charge of Diana and Martino was their doctor on the spot. And Dr Derossi was on his way. Both were agents of MI6.

It is no coincidence that Martino’s "injured arm" report is sent in just after Derossi had left. It is unusual for a dispatcher to go to the scene and if it had been "known" that Diana only had an injured arm his trip would have seemed unnecessary. Derossi would have notified Martino he had already left before Martino called in with the report. Martino would need Derossi at the crash scene.

Martino left Diana in the back of the Mercedes for another 17 minutes, removing her at 1 a.m. and she was in the ambulance by 1.06. But by that time Martino had her anaesthetised, intubated and ventilated.

A patient is much easier to control if they are unconscious and unable to talk. intubation and ventilation is an extreme process. It involved placing a flexible plastic tube down Diana's windpipe. For this to occur, Diana had to be anaesthetised. These procedures are only carried out prior to hospital if it is absolutely necessary.

In Diana's case it was not.

After Marc Lejay was told about this treatment at 1.19 a.m. he said to Derossi that it "was rather strong for the circumstances". The inquest expert, Professor Tom Treasure, said that in the UK ambulance crews don't intubate unless the person is so incapacitated that it can be done without the use of drugs. He also stated that anaesthetising the patient makes them "much harder to analyse in terms of their brain injury and so on".

So it is a last resort.

Diana was not a last resort patient. She had a Glasgow coma rating of 14 out of 15 and was not having trouble with breathing.

On arrival at 12.50 Derossi joined Martino's ambulance crew, bringing the number on board to five - Jean-Marc Martino, Arnaud Derossi, Barbara Kapfer, a person called "Fadi", and the driver, Michel Massebeuf. The inquest jury were only informed of three - Martino, Massebeuf and an unnamed "medical student".

Once inside his ambulance Martino undressed and examined the now unconscious Diana.

The first page of the ambulance report reveals the results of that examination under the heading "Findings". Right arm and right leg injuries are mentioned and also "thoracic trauma".

So by 1.15 a.m. Martino is aware that Diana has a thoracic trauma and by his own later admission to the medical investigators that indicates an "internal injury" in that area. This in turn confirmed the requirement to get Diana to a place with, in his words, "the technical wherewithal capable of operating in thoracic" - a hospital.

But that is not what occurred. In fact, the opposite occurred.

At 1.19 Dr Derossi, who is now in the ambulance, phoned through a report to Dr Lejay. He told Lejay two critical lies. He said Diana had "obvious cranial trauma" and he also stated, "at first appearance nothing to report for the thorax". And then Derossi repeated "nothing for the thorax" later in the conversation.

Martino's examination revealed the area where a life-threatening internal injury could lie - the thorax - yet Derossi told Lejay "nothing for the thorax" twice. But also said, "obvious cranial trauma" - something which is not in the record of Martino' s examination.

The effect of this information for Lejay would be that when calling the hospital he would definitely not be asking for a cardio-thoracic specialist to be on hand, but instead would be seeking the presence of a head trauma specialist.

Martino also wrote that Diana's blood pressure had dropped but failed to record the level. Derossi told the base that it was 70. When Lejay heard this, he suggested the low blood pressure might be due to the sedatives Martino had administered - Lejay described them as "a bit violent" for the circumstances. Martino had administered Fentanyl, which is over 80 times more powerful than morphine.

During later cross-examination at the inquest, Martino admitted that 70 is not actually that low. He was asked: "What is your definition of 'stability'" at a crash scene? Martino answered: "Blood pressure between 60 and - a minimum of 70 to 80 units of arterial blood pressure" .

Now in the ambulance, Martino proceeded to use the "low" blood pressure as a pretext to start pumping catecholamines into Diana's system - right from about 1.10 through to 2.06 a.m., when she was delivered to the hospital.

The effect of catecholamine is that it increases the blood pressure, but it also increases the pressure on any potential internal injury. So it should only be administered if absolutely necessary.

In Diana's case catecholamine was not necessary because her blood pressure was not that low, but even more important, the thoracic trauma had revealed the likelihood of an internal chest injury. This meant that the application of catecholamines could be detrimental to Diana's condition.

And Dr Martino - being a doctor - would have definitely been aware of that.

At the inquest, expert Tom Treasure criticised Martino's actions: "Struggling to get a perfect pulse and blood pressure may be wrong; you want one that is just good enough ..... The [catecholamines] being counterproductive, they are flogging the heart, they are tightening the circulation. But the real problem is the hole in the blood vessel and, if anything, you are making ... things worse."

Diana had a critical torn vein and the thoracic trauma should have told Martino that such an internal injury was likely.

By pouring in catecholamines Martino was ensuring that any internal injury would be made worse and in turn would help bring on Diana's death.

Dr Martino told the inquest that a blood pressure of 70 and a pulse of 100 - which Diana had at 1.10 - was stable. Yet he failed to move the ambulance out of the tunnel until 1041 - 31 minutes later.

During the 1.19 report Lejay, at the base, asked whether the ambulance was "ready to roll". He was told by Derossi that it would leave in "a few minutes". Then 10 minutes later, at 1.29 a.m., Lejay calls the ambulance and asks if they are "en route yet". This is even though Lejay was unaware of the thoracic trauma. Had he been told about that, he would have been even more keen for the ambulance to get to the hospital quickly.

A key French defence is that things are done differently there - that ambulances linger longer at the scene: it is called "stay and play". That is true, to a point. But the questions from Lejay, wanting the ambulance to get moving, and the obvious fact that Diana's condition required early hospitalisation, overwhelm any stay and play argument. The requirement for hospitalisation was even admitted by Martino in his early assessment to the French investigators.

Drs Martino and Derossi deliberately lingered as long as they could in the Alma Tunnel, while they simultaneously pumped catecholamines into Diana, knowing that was harmful to her. And they also withheld knowledge of a thoracic trauma from the SAMU base.

The ambulance finally trundled out of the tunnel at 1041 a.m., followed by two French journalists - Pierre Suu and Thierry Orban.

It was 1 hour and 18 minutes since the crash.





The Murder of Princess Diana?
P 104 PARIS-LONDON CONNECTION

There were six people on board - Princess Diana, Jean-Marc Martino, Barbara Kapfer, and "Fadi" were in the back and Arnaud Derossi and driver, Michel Massebeuf, were in the front.

The destination hospital was La Pitié Salpêtrière.

Normally the procedure was for the SAMU base to determine the hospital. That did not happen in this case. Instead, during the 1.19 call, Derossi specifically told Lejay to book Diana in to "the neurosurgical unit at the Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital". The reason Derossi did this was apparently because he had been told there was no cardio-thoracic specialist on duty there that night.

There was a hospital where VIPs and political leaders were normally sent to, which did have all the specialists on duty 24 hours for emergencies. That was the Val de Grace. It was just 4.6 km from the crash scene, whereas La Pitié was 5.7 km. In the early edition of The People published on the day of the crash, it said that Diana was "believed to be in the French VIP Val de Grace hospital in central Paris".

That was the logical hospital.

A French emergency physician was later quoted: "Every political figure who is in a car crash or is injured is taken there .... The Val de Grace ... has a top team of trauma specialists on duty around the clock. I might have helicoptered her in. She would have been on the operating block a few minutes after being stabilised."

But it was not in the MI6 plan for Diana to be properly treated for her injuries - in fact, the plan was that she wouldn't survive that night - and part of that was sending her to the wrong hospital.

Pierre Suu, who followed the ambulance from the tunnel, said it was "being driven at walking pace". The ambulance travelled at an average speed of 17 kph (11 mph) then at 2 a.m. was seen to stop for five minutes within 500 metres of the hospital.

Suu later told the police that "a doctor jumped out of the passenger side of the vehicle and rushed round the back of the ambulance and got inside". That doctor was Arnaud Derossi.

Thierry Orban, who was near Suu, said the ambulance "was rocking".

Martino said he stopped the ambulance because Diana's blood pressure had dropped and he "increased the quantity of the drip volume". He specifically told the police: "I did not do any cardiac massage at that moment".

Martino has never said what level Diana's blood pressure fell to. His explanation for the stoppage of the ambulance does not account for Derossi's sudden move from the front to the back, or the rocking ambulance.

It seems likely that some procedure was carried out during the five minute stoppage that helped quicken Diana's death.

The ambulance started moving again at 2.05 and arrived at the hospital at 2.06.

There was no cardio-thoracic specialist on hand. Instead, he was asleep at home. Dr Alain Pavie, the cardio-thoracic specialist, was phoned at 2.1 0 a.m., four minutes after Diana arrived.

Two minutes later Diana stopped breathing on the operating table. She never regained her breath.

Princess Diana passed away six minutes after being delivered to hospital - and two minutes after the cardio-thoracic specialist had been called.

It was 2.12 a.m.

The La Pitie medical team, led by Dr Bruno Riou, did the best they could, but in the circumstances they had no chance of saving Diana.

That is because the actions of Drs Martino and Derossi had already sealed her fate. Effectively those two doctors had assassinated Princess Diana in the back of their ambulance, on the orders of their MI6 handlers. They would have been generously remunerated for their actions.

Riou and his team worked feverishly away for a further two hours in a desperate but hopeless attempt to save a princess who was already dead.

They officially gave up at 4 a.m. - 3 hours and 37 minutes after the crash in the Alma Tunnel.




Princess Diana Crash: The Dr Jean-Marc Martino Ambulance Timeline
00:23 – Sunday 31st August 1997 – Di and Dodi's Mercedes S280 Crashes In The Alma Tunnel

12:28 – Dr Jean-Marc Martino’s SAMU Ambulance Leaves The Necker Hospital

00:40 – Dr Jean-Marc Martino’s SAMU Ambulance Arrives In The Alma Tunnel

01:41 – Dr Jean-Marc Martino’s SAMU Ambulance Leaves The Tunnel With Diana

02:00 – The Ambulance Stops Inexplicably, Begins ‘Rocking From Side To Side’

02:05 – Dr Jean-Marc Martino’s SAMU Ambulance Restarts

02:06 – Martino’s Ambulance Arrives At La Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital

02:12 – Princess Diana Takes Her Final Breath



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tomlinson: The spy who was left out in the cold
Belfast Telegraph, United Kingdom - Sep 4, 2006

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ news/features/story.jsp?story=705124

Since being sacked by MI6, Richard Tomlinson has waged war on his former spymasters, allegedly outing key agents on the net. Now they're exacting harsh revenge for his treachery, as Andrew Mueller discovers.

It is difficult not to suspect a whiff of self-parody in Richard Tomlinson's choice of interview location. He waves from a gleaming white speedboat, moored amid dozens of millionaires' runabouts on an Antibes pier. It's precisely the sort of setting from which the most famous veteran of Tomlinson's former employers, MI6, might have roared off to battle a bald, cat-stroking megalomaniac in his hollowed-out volcano lair, prior to seducing some improbably named heroine as the closing credits rolled. Tomlinson, however, is not commandeering this vessel on Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service. He's keeping an eye on it for the Antibes yacht brokerage firm he now works for.

"I have a pretty nice life down here," he says. "But do I miss the Service? Yeah, I do. It's very interesting, with tremendous security, lots of investment in training, good fun, and you get a fantastic index-linked pension when you're 55 - you retire on virtually your full salary when you're still young enough to buy a boat and sail around the world. It's a brilliant deal really."

Tomlinson, 43, was sacked by MI6 in 1995. The reasons, he claims, were never made clear. Possibly, he allows, it was one of those unfathomable quirks of office politics. Maybe someone, somewhere, just didn't like the cut of his jib.

Getting straightforward answers out of any bureaucracy in such circumstances can be a chore. Prising truth from an organisation as secretive as MI6 is a task that most people would glumly admit was impossible. Tomlinson has now spent more than a decade repeatedly tilting at this particular windmill, with the result that he has spent various portions of his post-MI6 life on the run, under arrest, in court, in prison, and now in exile - but not out of the reach of Britain's police forces and security services.

On 27 June, 2006, French police, acting on a British warrant and with officers of the Metropolitan Police present, raided Tomlinson's home. The French police took Tomlinson's main computer, his laptop, a friend's laptop, his Psion organiser, his cameras, and his New Zealand passport (as a Kiwi-born dual citizen, Tomlinson was permitted to keep his British passport, at the insistence, he says, of French authorities).

The British police, says Tomlinson, still have all these items in their possession, and won't give them back. Scotland Yard, pressed for a comment, are not, as they put it, "prepared to discuss individuals in terms of property that may or may not have been seized". They do confirm that Special Branch is looking into "unauthorised disclosure of information in breach of the Official Secrets Act", and that searches in France have taken place. These searches, says the Met, are part of an investigation into "the publication of specific information on the internet".

On 24 April, 2006, the 11th anniversary of his dismissal, Tomlinson started the "Tomlinson vs MI6" blog. Every year on that date, he explains, he has been in the habit of writing to MI6 seeking a meeting, a discussion, an explanation for his dismissal. Despondently concluding that MI6 is no more likely to reply this year than any other, Tomlinson went public.

"I don't know why they are worried about it," he says. "It's just a silly little blog. Even if I wanted to put anything secret up there, I've been out of MI6 for 11 years. I have nothing I could say that's secret.

"When I started [the blog], I was a bit antagonistic, I suppose. There are plenty of things to feel annoyed about with MI6, particularly the way they got us into the war in Iraq. The names I called [MI6 chief ] John Scarlett were probably a bit excessive."

"I've been having problems with MI6 for 11 years," Tomlinson continues. "They do things like using their influence to stop me getting visas to go anywhere. So I write to them, and say, 'Look, ring me up, we'll have a meeting, we'll talk it out.' I mean, I feel a grievance. Talking to someone about that grievance would make me feel a lot better. We talk it over, have a handshake over it, and forget it.

"I know it's a wimpy American word, but it would mean a certain amount of 'closure' for me. I think it could be redressed easily by an honest talk with someone from MI6, but they never, ever reply to my letters."

Tomlinson's involvement with MI6 started the old-fashioned way - the proverbial tap on the shoulder at Cambridge, where he studied engineering and cultivated ambitions of joining the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm (he is a qualified pilot - his schedule for the rest of the week after our meeting includes flying across to Corsica to pick up a boat part). He initially rebuffed MI6's interest, but thought again a few years later, after failing the naval medical examination on the grounds of childhood asthma, doing a bit of travelling, realising he was unsuited to office work, and passing the Territorial Army's SAS selection.

Tomlinson began MI6's Intelligence Officers' New Entry Course in 1991. By his own account, he was a star pupil. He was subsequently dispatched, under an assortment of cover stories and false passports, to the imploding Bosnia-Herzegovina and the collapsing Russia, among other places. A discreetly glittering career seemed assured.

Then, on 24 April, 1995, Tomlinson's swipe-card was rejected by the scanners at MI6's Vauxhall Cross headquarters. He was then escorted to the personnel department and informed of his dismissal. When he describes this moment today, he resembles nothing so much as a man who has never recovered from an altar-side jilting. In his head, Tomlinson had pledged himself to MI6 for life. The Service's abrupt, and, to his mind, unfathomable, disrequiting of his loyalty clearly wounded him deeply, as did their equivalent of the I-still-want-to-be-your-friend soliloquy - an offer to help find him a job at a sympathetic City firm.

Easing former operatives into cosy second careers is thought to be fairly standard MI6 practice. "It's quite common," confirms the journalist and author Phillip Knightley, who has written extensively about spooks and spookery. "There is a sort of club of companies they deal with. Part of the reason would be to reward the loyalty of operatives, or so that the former officers keep quiet, and the firms might expect a quid pro quo, a tip-off of commercial interest." The offer didn't impress Tomlinson.

"I still find that really insulting," he spits. "Talk about imposing their narrow, venal aspirations on someone else. Nobody spent even two minutes asking me what I might be interested in."

Looking into starting afresh in Sydney in 1997, Tomlinson met with a publisher to discuss writing a book about his time in MI6. Encouraged, he typed up a synopsis. He was, he admits, worried that this represented a clear-cut breach of the Official Secrets Act, but he was reassured by the publisher's promise that the synopsis would remain locked in her filing cabinet while he thought about whether or not to proceed with the memoir.

Still somewhat rudderless and adrift, Tomlinson returned to England. Lacking options, and with bills mounting, he resignedly accepted a job that MI6 had found for him, with Jackie Stewart's Formula One team in Milton Keynes, and ruminated more on the book. Still anxious to do the right thing by MI6, he filed a request seeking advice about submitting a manuscript for security clearance. MI6 replied, advising him sternly not to even think about it.

Tomlinson was infuriated by their attitude, and emailed the Australian publisher from his work computer, indicating a desire to proceed with the project. A few days later, on 8 September, 1997, Tomlinson's flat was burgled - or, as Tomlinson believes, "burgled" - and his laptop, containing what he'd written of the book, taken. The following month, the publisher was visited by the Australian Federal Police, to whom, despite her previous assurances, she handed Tomlinson's synopsis. Back in England, Tomlinson was arrested and charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act. He was convicted, sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, and served eight.

Asked if the experience, which included being interred as a Category A prisoner in HMP Belmarsh, scarred him, he replies: "Not really, no. It was a miserable time, but you remember the good things and you forget the 22 hours of utter boredom every day."

After release, Tomlinson's difficulties continued. He absconded, without documentation, to France in 1998 - this seems to have been as much a means of defiantly hoisting two fingers towards Vauxhall Cross as anything else - and was arrested.

He carried on to New Zealand, where his hotel room was raided. At New York's JFK airport, he was refused entry to the United States and deported - rather fortuitously, as Tomlinson's original itinerary had seen him due to leave the US on Swissair flight SR111 on 2 September, 1998, which plunged into the Atlantic shortly after take-off. He was harassed in France and Switzerland, and suffered repeated interdiction of his early attempts at an online presence - one of which showed Tomlinson superimposed before Vauxhall Cross in a daft hat, accompanied by the theme from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

All that was before the surfacing of The List, the underlying cause of Tomlinson's present travails.

In May 1998, a website belonging to indefatigable American activist/crank Lyndon LaRouche published a list of 115 alleged current and former MI6 officers. The Foreign Secretary at the time, the late Robin Cook, blamed Tomlinson. Tomlinson was thrown out of Switzerland, where he'd been staying, followed in Germany, and arrested in Italy.

His book The Big Breach - a terrific read, incidentally - did eventually appear. Its gestation was not orthodox. Initially it was published in Russia, and given away as a download on the internet. In 2001, it was published in the UK by a British house called Cutting Edge, which no longer exists.

Bill Campbell, a director of Mainstream Publishing, Cutting Edge's then-distributor, recalls no significant interference from the government. "I think," recalls Campbell, "they let it go because it was already in the public domain, with the Russian publication and the download. They didn't try to stop its publication, or anything like that. There was some communication from the Treasury solicitor, stating that the author would not be allowed to benefit in any way - so all Richard's royalties are still being held in an escrow account in an Edinburgh lawyer's office."

The Big Breach sold, by Campbell's recollection, somewhere in the vicinity of 12,000-14,000 copies. It caused controversy for Tomlinson's suggestions of links between the media and the security services (The Spectator, he alleged, once furnished an MI6 agent in Estonia with credentials), and of secret-service involvement in the death of Diana, Princess of Wales (the driver in whose car she died, Henri Paul, was an MI6 informer, according to Tomlinson). He also claimed that MI6 had been working on a plan to assassinate Slobodan Milosevic by contriving a car accident in a tunnel.

While MI6's heat abated after the book's publication - given the year, they may have decided that they had more pressing matters to attend to - Tomlinson's anger did not. He drifted between jobs as a snowboard instructor, deckhand, mathematics tutor and translator (he speaks five languages), never finding the excitement or sense of purpose MI6 had given him. "Oh, yeah, it was great," he says of his time with MI6, with almost painful wistfulness. "Brilliant fun."

He found his current job at the yacht firm a year or so ago. Then, in April, he went online again with the Tomlinson vs MI6 blog.

"It gets quite a lot of readers," he says. "I would say that most are either people from MI6, or crackpots. There was one bloke who kept coming on and accusing newsreaders - Jon Snow was one of them - of spying on him through his television set. He's got a whole website about this, apparently."

Tomlinson used, and is using, the blog to outline his personal grievances, his disgust with MI6's role in the UK's Iraq misadventure and, curiously, to make available an updated version of The List via a link on his website. He seems determined to annoy MI6 by doing the very thing they were accusing him of doing when he wasn't.

"Exactly," he grins. "I'm collating all the information I can find about every single MI6 officer on the internet, and putting it in one file, so now there's a searchable MI6 database."

Tomlinson's list comprises 210 names. Few of them will mean anything to most readers, with the exception of former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown, whose service in the Service is long-standing Westminster legend. Other, older lists of alleged MI6 agents circulating cyberspace are longer but, Tomlinson claims, less accurate.

"That's why," he says, "I don't believe MI6 really think I did it originally, because the lists were so inaccurate. Things like ambassadors listed as MI6 officers, and MI6 know perfectly well that I know that ambassadors never work for MI6. But you can work out half of MI6 by looking at the diplomatic lists, you don't need to be a genius. I've just collated it and put it in one place."

Nevertheless, isn't there a possibility that this is, in some way, detrimental to Britain's national security?

"Yes, it is a bit," sighs Tomlinson, sounding suddenly rather deflated.

So why do it?

"It's all open-source information," he says, rallying. "It only would have taken two minutes to find beforehand. And it's MI6 who've drawn attention to it by arresting me."

Do you feel guilty?

"Why," he asks, "would I feel guilty about something I haven't done? I'm not in the slightest guilty of what they're accusing me of. There is nothing on my computer which is in breach of the Official Secrets Act."

Which, if true, begs the question: what are the British authorities doing getting involved with it? Phillip Knightley believes that if Tomlinson does sound paranoid, it doesn't mean that MI6 are not out to get him.

"They would feel," says Knightley, "that he let them down, first for whatever it was they sacked him for, then for blowing the whistle. They're a very tight-knit, loyal family, and they'll pursue him to the ends of the earth. If he tries to make another career, they'll do their best to ruin it. The very idea of writing a book..." Knightley draws a comparison with the story of Warren Reed, a (MI6-trained) former officer of Australia's Security and Intelligence Service, who went on to write books, fictional and not, about working in the intelligence services.

"They [MI6] destroyed his career," says Knightley. "Every time he had a new thing going, they destroyed him. When he found a job, they made contact with his bosses, planted nasty rumours about him. They do this partly to discourage others, but it is also possible that they want to discredit Tomlinson before he reveals something.

"There must be some deep, dark secret at the heart of this whole thing. As I understood it, he was a high-flyer, headed for great things. It doesn't surprise me that they didn't give him a reason, but it does surprise me that he claims to have no idea."

"I spoke to Special Plod yesterday," says Tomlinson. "I asked how they were getting on with my computers. They said they were still under investigation. I asked if they'd found anything to charge me with, and they said no. I asked if they were going to charge me with anything, and they said of course not, because I'm in France. So if they've got no realistic chance of charging me, what are they doing with my stuff?"

Tomlinson believes himself the victim of two factors. One is a desire on MI6's part to discourage any other agents from following his path into print - although Tomlinson notes, bitterly, that Dame Stella Rimington was allowed write a memoir about her time in MI5. The other is what seems an institutional failure by MI6 to understand either the internet or public relations. Closing down a website by legal means, or by hassling its hosts, is like stamping on mercury. Making a fuss about not wanting people to see something only inflames curiosity. Tomlinson's blog has wandered from server to server as various website hosts have been leant on - and, to the certain infuriation of his persecutors, Tomlinson has been posting all of the correspondence pertaining to this pressurising online.

"When I was in MI6," he says, "they were scared to death of the internet. They wouldn't have any internet connections in the office, even by the time I left in 1995. I'm sure they've moved on now."

I leave Tomlinson, unsure if he has, though. His love for the job he once had is obvious in his conversation, and in the fizzingly energetic chapters of The Big Breach which recall his time in the Service.

When I ask if he ever wonders what he'd be doing now if the last 11 years had gone according to plan, he looks haunted. "Most of my contemporaries," he says, "are heads of big MI6 stations, Geneva or somewhere like that. I'd only be working in declared posts, because my cover would have been well and truly blown. I could be anywhere. And the standard of living when you're overseas is fantastic, it really is."

Had he thought the job worthwhile?

"Yes," he says, emphatically. "I did, absolutely. I think I'd find it quite hard now. I was opposed to the intervention in Iraq, and even if I was in MI6 I'd be opposed to it, as I'm sure a lot of people in MI6 are. It would be harder to feel a strong sense of justification. During the Cold War, we were fighting something being imposed on us, but in this so-called war on terrorism I do think a lot of the cause of it is the West's double standards around the world.

"During the Cold War," he continues, "Britain was this innocent player which did face a threat. But we're not anymore. We're part of the problem. So I'd find it a little more difficult now."

Impossible though it obviously is, would he still want to work for MI6?

"Not really," he says, not entirely convincingly. "If they were to offer to shake hands on it, I'd feel fine. As recently as four or five years ago I'd have felt that I very much still wanted to be in the Service. I think that phase has gone, but I'm still very angry. I was just starting out. I only did minor things. I just look back at a lost opportunity, really."

Tomlinson glumly anticipates further harassment. He says that he doesn't fear for his physical safety, although starts at bumps in the night. He also intends to write a spy novel, which most armchair-educated psychologists would diagnose as an effort to stay connected in some way to the life he would rather have led. He says he wants to be left alone by MI6, but I'm not sure how true that is - like the ditched groom unable to get over it, he seems to derive some consolatory gratification from the fact that his former betrothed can't quite get him out of their head, either.

"In general," he says, "MI6 does work for the good, but it could have a better public image. They could sort that out without much expense or hassle. If you have a security service regarded as sinister or inept, you have a lot of problems recruiting people who are willing to help."

Certainly, MI6's public image is not enhanced by its pestering of Tomlinson.

It is impossible to argue with at least one of his statements. "I'd have thought," Tomlinson smiles, "that they'd have a thousand more important things to do, just at the moment."


But then maybe they have been reading Mr. Tomlinson's affadavit on the death of Diana [ed.]
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ news/features/story.jsp?story=705124


see also - http://tomlinsonvmi6.blogspot.com/2006/ ... kmail.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Revealed: how the BBC used MI5 to vet thousands of staff
By Chris Hastings, Arts and Media Editor (Filed: 02/07/2006) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... nspy02.xml

It is a tale of secret agents and surveillance that could have come straight out the BBC's classic spy drama Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

But the difference is that genuine spies were involved and they were operating behind
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Also important as to why Diana was eliminated is Diana’s tapes.

She kept them in a mahogany box.

When Butler Paul Burrell was in court about taking stuff from Diana’s apartment after her death, he threatened to tell all and had possession of the box.

One tape concerned the rape in the palace of George Smith, a valet, by a senior royal’s member of staff.

There may have been other strange conversations on Diana’s tapes, such as about Charles.

George Smith was paid off for his silence. A few years later he was mysteriously deep sixed. As to Paul, the Queen stopped his trial by saying she remembered Diana said he could have all the loot.

John’s last book, How They Murdered Princess Diana, is his best.


'I was the victim of gay rape,' says former royal valet
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... valet.html
By Martin Bentham and Andrew Alderson12:01AM GMT 10 Nov 2002

A former royal valet came forward last night to claim that he was the victim of a homosexual rape carried out by a senior member of the Prince of Wales's staff.

George Smith, 42 a former Army corporal who served in the Falklands, waived his right to anonymity to disclose details of the alleged rape. He accused Prince Charles and other Royal Family members of seeking to cover up the attack. He also said that he had told Diana, Princess of Wales, about the incident and that she had made a tape recording of his claims.

The disclosures, made by Mr Smith in an interview with The Mail on Sunday, will fuel the row over the collapse of the trial of the Princess's former butler, Paul Burrell, who was cleared of theft charges at the Old Bailey a fortnight ago.

There has been speculation that the trial, which was halted after an intervention by the Queen, collapsed because of fears that details of the tape recording, and the alleged rape, would be made public - although that is strongly denied by Buckingham Palace.

In his interview, Mr Smith said the attack happened in 1989 after he was picked up at Kensington Palace by the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons. The pair went to the man's London home, where they dined and drank champagne and spirits before Mr Smith fell asleep. He said that when he awoke, in the early hours, he found he had been sexually assaulted.

Related Articles
Burrell TV revelations 10 Nov 2002

"I woke up. I was hurting," said Mr Smith. "I was totally ashamed. I felt sick. He was just laughing . . . as if he knew that he had got his way with me and that I could not do anything about it. He was much more influential and powerful than me at the Palace."

The alleged attacker remains one of Prince Charles's most senior courtiers. Mr Smith, who began working in the Prince's household in 1986 and who was married with two children at the time of the incident, admitted that he had not reported the attack at the time, nor sought medical treatment.

He later suffered drink and mental problems, caused principally by the effect of his experiences in the Falklands War. Later, in 1996, he was admitted to the Priory clinic.




Diana's rape tape sensation
by IAN GALLAGHER, LOUISA PRITCHARD, MARTIN SMITH, Mail on Sunday
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html

The Royal family feared former butler Paul Burrell - hours away from taking the witness stand when the Queen dramatically intervened - would divulge a series of embarrassing and highly damaging secrets.

Foremost among their concerns was that details of a rape allegation contained in an explosive tape recording made by Princess Diana would be publicly aired at the Old Bailey.

The tapes relate to claims by a Palace servant that he was sexually assaulted by a trusted person on Prince Charles's staff. Paul Burrell knew both the victim - whom he counted as a close friend - and his alleged attacker, whom he could have named in open court.

A top-level Scotland Yard inquiry into the alleged attack ran in tandem with the Burrell inquiry and both were led by the same officer, DCI Maxine de Brunner.

During the investigation, former members of the Royal Household were quizzed in intimate detail about the alleged incident and, The Mail on Sunday has learned, were asked prurient questions about the Prince of Wales.

It is understood that evidence given by Burrell in his defence would also have included sensitive information about Prince Charles's clandestine affair with Camilla Parker Bowles which would have had potentially serious implications for St James's Palace.

And, as the events which led to the collapse of the £3million trial slowly began to unravel last night, there was an explanation as to why Paul Burrell's lawyers did not offer up evidence about his meeting with the Queen earlier.

Speaking for the first time since the trial collapsed, Burrell told how he himself had kept the details of his private meeting with the Queen hidden from his solicitors - and how he had told the Queen he was stopping 'McCrocodile', his nickname for Diana's sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale, from shredding documents.

The former butler, who spent yesterday with his wife Maria and their children in what his brother-in-law Peter Cosgrove described as 'a safe house', said: 'It was between myself and Her Majesty. Words are inadequate to say how I feel. What she has done for me, to intervene like this, is absolutely unprecedented.'

It was only on Thursday that Mr Burrell told his lawyers in the chambers of defence barrister Lord Carlisle: 'There is something else I said to the Queen that maybe you should know.

'I told her I had taken some of Princess Diana's possessions and documents. I also told her the reason for this was that McCrocodile had been shredding history.'

In a further twist, it was reported last night that the prosecution kept crucial aspects of the case from Prince Charles.

A senior CPS officer close to the case is reported to have said: 'Why didn't we keep Charles up to speed on the details of the investigation as it developed? Because Charles's aides would have taken it to the defence immediately. That was the basic reason why Charles wasn't kept in the loop.'

And in another startling development to the case, one highly placed Royal source revealed the Royal Family had pressing worries of their own. The source claimed that Diana's butler handed a bundle of her private letters to the Queen during his now famous three-hour audience with her.

Found among the items in the mahogany box of secrets Diana kept at Kensington Palace were letters from Prince Philip said to be 'cruel and insulting'.

The Royal Family's deep anxiety over what Burrell would say in the witness box emerged as questions were raised about Buckingham Palace's account of the circumstances surrounding the Queen's 'chance' remark which led to the collapse of the trial.

It was said that it came up during the car journey to the Bali bombing memorial service at St Paul's Cathedral. The Queen mentioned to Prince Charles that in the weeks after Princess Diana's death, the butler had come to see her and told her that he had gathered some papers for safekeeping.

Last night Buckingham Palace denied reports that the decision to go to the police with this vital evidence was, in fact, taken at an earlier ' conference'. Those present were reported to have included the Queen, her private secretary Sir Robin Janvrin, Prince Philip and Prince Charles and his private secretary.

But a Palace spokeswoman said: 'There was no such meeting.' However, there certainly was deep concern among the senior Royals that Paul Burrell was on the verge of detailing the contents of a recording secretly made by Princess Diana at the hospital bedside of the alleged rape victim, a member of Prince Charles's staff.

During their 30-minute conversation, the 'victim' is understood to have given Diana a comprehensive account of how he was violently assaulted by another man on the staff at St James's Palace.

Although the alleged perpetrator is a trusted servant of Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles is said to be hostile towards him.

At the conclusion of a top-level inquiry into the allegations - first revealed last year by The Mail on Sunday - detectives expressed bemusement at Charles's apparent wish to 'protect' the alleged perpetrator and St James's Palace staff interviewed by police are understood to have been asked ' impertinent and irrelevant intimate' questions about the heir to the throne.

The 'victim' of the alleged Palace rape is a close friend of Burrell and because of their association, the former butler - one of the few people Diana told about the secret tape - was 'terrified' of being dragged into another police inquiry.

Asked about the alleged rape by The Mail on Sunday last year while he was on board the QE2, Paul Burrell confirmed the story of the taped conversation.

He said the Princess had made the tape to keep a record of the alleged victim's accusations. But he said that he assumed only he and the alleged victim - for whom he felt distressed - knew about it.

'He is a very close friend and I would never discuss his private life,' he said.

Diana's 'interview' with the alleged victim - the recorder was concealed in her handbag - took place in the mid-Nineties when she visited him in hospital accompanied by Victoria Mendham, secretary to Diana's private secretary Patrick Jephson.

There was a reason why the Princess covertly and regularly recorded her private conversations. At the time she believed she was the victim of a campaign to undermine her by faceless allies of her husband who had used secret tapes against her.

The man, who has a wife and children, from whom he is now separated, left the Royal Household soon afterwards with a £50,000 payoff. It is understood that, as with all Palace staff, he was required to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Prince Charles's personal lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, brought the alleged assault to the attention of Scotland Yard last July, several years after an internal inquiry at St James's Palace.

As a result, a police inquiry was launched and the lawyer was intertoviewed by the Yard's Special Enquiry Team officers. She was required to hand over documents, including results of an internal inquiry ordered by Charles when the claim was originally made.

Police became aware of the rape allegation during unrelated inquiries into charges against Paul Burrell. Although he was not connected to the allegations in any sense, police believed he may have been storing the tape and were looking for it when they raided his home. It was not found and it is understood the police have failed to locate the recording.

During the trial, the Old Bailey was told detectives wanted to find 'sensitive items' from a box of Diana's secrets she kept at Kensington Palace.

And the way the Royal Family viewed the seriousness of missing material was highlighted by an intriguing claim last night that after Princess Margaret's death in February, the Queen increased security around her sister's apartments at Kensington Palace to prevent a 'repeat of the Burrell saga'.

Lord Ullswater, Margaret's former private secretary, spoke to her staff on the Queen's behalf and told them a 24-hour police guard was being put outside.

'No one - not even the Royals themselves - was allowed to take anything from the apartments without proper authorisation,' explained a Royal source. 'Anything taken had be signed for. Two female members of staff fell under suspicion and were searched - but they had nothing on them.'

In addition to the tapes, the Royal Family was understood to be concerned about sensitive evidence relating to Charles's affair with Camilla.

That, too, would have formed what one member of Burrell's legal team teasingly described as his 'long, detailed and very interesting' evidence.

Having worked for both Diana and Charles for many years at Highgrove, the butler observed from close quarters the events surrounding the marriage break-up.

Such evidence could have seriously damaged Charles's efforts to gain public approval over his relationship with Camilla, which have been largely successful.

There was also Royal Family concern over how the raking over of old ground, coupled with new revelations, would affect Prince William and Prince Harry.

The worrying chapter in Royal history is far from closed, however.

In December another former Royal butler, Harold Brown, will go on trial accused of the theft of property-belonging to his ex-employer, Princess Diana. He vigorously denies any wrongdoing.

In the meantime the Queen is likely to find herself in the spotlight for quite some time over her intervention in the Burrell trial.

Senior Labour backbencher Ian Davidson said she should be charged with wasting police time by not coming forward earlier. 'It defies belief that the Queen only suddenly realised that she had a crucial piece of evidence,' he said.

'It appears that the Queen has been deliberately withholding a vital piece of evidence. It has been a classic Establishment cover-up.

Last night amid a flurry of reports and allegations, Downing Street angrily denied suggestions that Tony Blair interfered in the Burrell trial.

The Prime Minister first learned about the crucial new piece of evidence during his weekly audience with the Queen last Tuesday at Buckingham Palace.

'The decision to drop the case was entirely a decision made by the prosecution,' said a No 10 source.

And reports that Prince William had known of the meeting between the Queen and Paul Burrell were played down by a St James's Palace spokesman.

He said: 'He knew about the meeting but he did not pass that information on to the police because he did not know the content of the meeting.'



TonyGosling wrote:02Jun20 - Paris London Connection The Assassination of Princess Diana by John Morgan https://www.bilderberg.org/sis.htm#morgan
Extracts from
Paris London Connection
The Assassination of Princess Diana
by John Morgan (2012)
Shining Bright Publishing
ISBN 978-0-9807407-5-2

A Threatening Phone Call From Sir Nicholas Soames

P 38 PARIS-LONDON CONNECTION

Then during the following month - February 1997 - Diana received a threatening phone call at her home in Kensington Palace. Her friend Simone Simmons was there:

"I was with Diana in her sitting-room at KP when she beckoned me over and held her large old-fashioned black telephone away from her ear so that I could hear. I heard a voice telling her she should stop meddling with things she didn't understand or know anything about, and spent several minutes trying to tell her to drop her [anti-landmines] campaign. Diana didn't say much, she just listened, and I clearly heard the warning: 'You never know when an accident is going to happen.' [Diana] went very pale.

The moment she put the phone down we started talking about what he had said. I tried to be reassuring which was not easy - she was clearly very worried ....

"When 1 listened into her conversation, with its apparent warning ... I was not sure [of her safety] any more. The conversation frightened Diana, and it certainly scared me."

Diana told Simmons that the caller was the Minister of the Armed Forces and close long-time friend of Prince Charles, Nicholas Soames - the same person who just 14 months earlier had accused Diana on national TV of being in "the advanced stages of paranoia".

Diana was not deterred and said to Simmons: "It doesn't matter what happens to me. We must do something. We cannot allow this slaughter to continue."

Then following the Soames phone call, Diana sought out a way of secretly recording her story. On March 7 a former BBC cameraman met with Diana at Kensington Palace and recorded the first of 7 videos. By the time the recordings were complete - later in March - there was 12 hours of footage. She addressed her 17 years of mistreatment at the hands of the royal family and also problems within the family, including her concerns regarding the relationship between Prince Charles and his senior valet, Michael Fawcett.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Diana: Fiat driver 'shot in the head'
THE paparazzi photographer at the centre of investigations into Princess Diana’s death died with two bullet holes in his head, it is claimed.
By MARTIN EVANS
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Mon, Jul 9, 2007
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12839 ... n-the-head


James Andanson, who followed the Princess’s every move in the week before her death, was thought to have committed suicide when his burnt corpse was found in the wreckage of a car in the French countryside.

But now the fireman who discovered the body, Christophe Pelat, has said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice.”

The revelation threatens to blow apart the inquest on Diana, which will have another preliminary hearing today in the London High Court.

Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi, 42, died with Diana in a Paris crash, is now demanding that Mr Pelat be called to give evidence at the inquest – or at least that his account is heard.


Andanson, 54, has been one of the key figures in the mystery surrounding the fatal crash, which happened 10 years ago next month.

Sponsored
Funeral Planning
Over 50's to Receive This New Benefit (Look Up Year of Birth to Qualify)
by Taboola
Diana in the 1980 s
Diana in the 1980's

As a leading paparazzi photographer, he had spent weeks following the 36-year-old Princess, as her romance with Dodi blossomed .

Many who have studied the accident closely believe it was Andanson who was driving a white Fiat Uno which clipped Diana’s Mercedes seconds before the crash, as part of a complicated assassination plot.

Police are certain that Andanson, a millionaire, was a regular informer for both MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, and French agencies. But he was never properly interviewed by the authorities, and less than three years after the tragedy, he was also found dead. His body, found in thick woodland near Montpellier, was so badly charred that it took police nearly a month before DNA and dental records confirmed his identity.

What makes Andanson’s precise movements on the night of the crash so vital is that he was in a white Fiat Uno

The official verdict was suicide. Now Mr Pelat, the first fire officer on the scene, has suggested he may have been murdered. His claim supports conspiracy theories that Andanson was himself assassinated by secret agents because he knew too much about the plot which killed Diana.

Asked by the Daily Express this week to expand on his extraordinary story, Mr Pelat, who still works as a fireman, said: “It is not my job to say any more to anybody except the official authorities.

“I deal with emergencies every day of the week and treat each one with equal importance.”

But he is believed to have given a TV interview in which he said he saw the bullet holes in Andanson’s head.

Mr Al Fayed now wants that evidence to be aired at the full inquests into Diana and Dodi’s deaths, later this year.

He is among those who believe that Diana and Dodi were murdered by the British security services because senior British royals, including Prince Philip, did not want Diana having a Muslim baby by Dodi.

And he is convinced that some of the paparazzi, including the driver of the white Fiat Uno, were MI6 agents whose mission was to stop the announcement of the couple’s engagement – and Diana’s pregnancy. Mr Pelat’s evidence could be vital in supporting these theories.

Andanson had been in Sardinia during the last week of August 1997, as Diana and Dodi enjoyed their last holiday together in the Mediter-ranean, and then returned to France on August 30.

Less than six hours after the fatal crash in Paris, and for reasons that have never been revealed, Andanson boarded a flight at Paris’s Orly airport, bound for Corsica.

He claimed he had been nowhere near the centre of the French capital when the crash happened, but could not provide any real evidence.

His son James and daughter Kimberly first told police that they thought their father was grape-harvesting in the Bordeaux region.

Then Andanson’s wife, Elizabeth, claimed she had been at home with her husband all night, at Le Manoir de la Bergerie, in Cher, until he abruptly left for Orly, at 3.45 am, to catch the dawn flight to Corsica.

Pressed by the Daily Express in an earlier interview, Mrs Andanson said her husband was “constantly on the run” and she might have been mistaken. She said: “It was always very difficult to recall James’s precise movements because he was always coming and going.”

Asked about the claim of bullet holes in her husband’s head, Mrs Andanson merely said: “We shall see.”

What makes Andanson’s precise movements on the night of the crash so vital is that he was in a white Fiat Uno.

The car was repainted shortly after the Alma tunnel crash, and was sold by Andanson in October 1997. And although the official French report on the crash concluded that Andanson’s car was not involved, forensic reports made available to the Daily Express told a very different story.

One said that paint scratches from the Fiat, found on the side-view mirror and bumper of the Mercedes, were identical to samples from the matching spot on Andanson’s Fiat. Police are now expected to reopen the investigation into Andanson’s death.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, the fourth official chosen to run the inquests on Diana and Dodi, has said he wants full disclosure of all evidence. Some French witnesses will appear by video link from Paris.

French and British investigators concluded that the crash happened because the couple’s chauffeur, Henri Paul, was drunk and affected by anti-depressant drugs.

Despite exhaustive investigations by the authorities on both sides of the Channel, many believe that crucial evidence, including what really happened to Andanson and what part he played in Diana’s death, has been overlooked.
Attachments
james andanson.jpg
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Revealed: Long-lost letter that Diana sent to Martin Bashir saying she had 'no regrets' and wasn't 'pressured' into Panorama interview - as it emerges Harry and William were dragged into probe to confirm it was their mother's writing

Note was written on official Kensington Palace stationery and signed by Princess Diana in December 1995
It was revealed for the first time today as evidence in official inquiry into conduct of reporter Martin Bashir
Solicitors representing William and Harry say handwriting 'would appear to indicate the author was Diana'
Report also reveals letter was discovered 25 years later after an anonymous person who had it came forward

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ealed.html



By Mark Duell for MailOnline

Published: 15:40, 20 May 2021 | Updated: 16:36, 20 May 2021

A long-lost letter that Princess Diana sent to BBC journalist Martin Bashir saying she had 'no regrets' and wasn't 'pressured' into her bombshell Panorama interview was sensationally revealed today for the first time.

The note, which was written on official Kensington Palace stationery and signed by Diana in December 1995, was included as evidence in the official inquiry into the conduct of the reporter in securing the interview.

Lord Dyson's report released today also revealed that solicitors representing Princes William and Harry had said the 'handwriting, notepaper and signature would appear to indicate that the author was Princess Diana'.
ADVERTISEMENT

The letter, which was in an envelope marked 'Martin', said: 'December 22, 1995. Martin Bashir did not show me any documents, nor give me any information that I was not previously aware of. I consented to the interview on Panorama without any undue pressure and have no regrets concerning the matter. Diana.'

The word 'no' was underlined, as was her name. The report also revealed how an anonymous man was asked in early 1996 by a member of BBC management to 'guard it with his life' and took the note home for safekeeping.

It was kept filed in a study, and taken to his new house when he moved. Then in November 2020, the man became aware of the news story that the note was missing - and found it along with other BBC papers he kept.

The long-lost letter that Princess Diana sent to BBC journalist Martin Bashir saying she had 'no regrets' and wasn't 'pressured'

The long-lost letter that Princess Diana sent to BBC journalist Martin Bashir saying she had 'no regrets' and wasn't 'pressured'
The letter on Kensington Palace paper was in an envelope marked 'Martin', dated December 22, 1995 and signed by Diana

The letter on Kensington Palace paper was in an envelope marked 'Martin', dated December 22, 1995 and signed by Diana

The person then told the BBC's legal department on November 10 last year. Someone from the corporation went to his house and collected the Diana note along with the other BBC documents, according to the report.
RELATED ARTICLES

Previous
1
Next

'Queen eats for comfort, Edward has AIDS, Camilla is...
'I was wrong to trust Martin Bashir': Ex-BBC chief Lord Tony...
BBC bosses are blasted for 'woefully ineffective' probe into...
'Some bonds go back a very long way': Earl Spencer shares...
One of Diana's closest friends Simone Simmons insists she...
BBC's day of shame: Charles Spencer shares poignant...

Share this article
Share
323 shares

Lord Dyson said BBC management 'believed that this note put an end to any concerns about the methods deployed, in particular by Mr Bashir, in securing the interview'.
Key findings from Lord Dyson's report into the Panorama interview

Martin Bashir breached BBC rules by mocking up fake bank statements and showing them to Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, to gain access to the princess.
The documents falsely suggested individuals were being paid for keeping the princess under surveillance.
He acted to deceive Earl Spencer and encourage him to arrange for Bashir to meet Diana. - Bashir was therefore able to persuade her to agree to give the interview.
During a meeting on August 31 1995 Bashir told Earl Spencer he was a target of the tabloids and that his household contained informants who were selling private information about him to that end of the media.
Lord Dyson said Bashir had engaged in 'deceitful behaviour' in a 'serious breach' of the BBC's producer guidelines.
A letter, which was included as evidence in the report, written on official Kensington Palace stationery and signed by Diana says she consented to the interview 'without any undue pressure and have no regrets concerning the matter'.
The BBC subsequently 'fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark' in its internal investigation in 1996.
Lord Tony Hall, who was director of BBC news and current affairs when the Diana interview was screened, has apologised, saying it 'fell well short of what was required'.
Steve Hewlett, who edited the Panorama interview, reassured Earl Spencer at the time of the interview that 'Martin is one of my very best'.
However, Hewlett's widow Rachel Crellin offered Lord Dyson's inquiry 'a detailed and strong response' to accusations that he was aware or involved in Bashir's behaviour.



He added that suspicions had been raised that it was a forgery, but he was 'satisfied that it is a genuine document'.

Lord Dyson wrote in his report: 'Harbottle & Lewis, solicitors representing the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex, have told me that the handwriting, notepaper and signature would appear to indicate that the author was Princess Diana.

'Moreover, an account has been provided to me on condition of confidentiality of what became of the document between, probably, early in 1996 and November 2020. The person concerned was asked early in 1996 by someone in BBC Management to 'guard it with his life' (or words to that effect).

'At some point, he took it home for safekeeping and filed it in his study. When he moved house, he took it (and other documents relating to the Diana interview) to his new house. In about early November 2020, he became aware of the news story that the Diana note was missing. He searched for it and found it together with the other BBC documents that he had kept.

'On November 10, 2020, he informed the BBC's Legal Department. On the same day, someone from the BBC went to his house and collected the Diana note and the other BBC documents. I see no reason not to accept the truth of the whole of this account.'

Last November, the BBC announced it had 'recovered' the long-lost note handwritten by Diana - supposedly the corporation's 'get out of jail free' card for the Bashir scandal.

Until then, the corporation had unable to locate the Princess's crucial letter, which it had previously used to exonerate itself over claims of Bashir's underhand tactics.

A BBC spokesman said last November: 'The BBC has now recovered the Princess's original handwritten note which is referred to in our records from the time. We will pass it on to the independent investigation.

'As there has been a lot of commentary about this note and journalists have asked about it, we thought it appropriate to put on record that we've now recovered it.'

At the time, former head of royal protection Dai Davies said: 'It all sounds very convenient to me, suddenly finding crucial evidence. This is no way to hold an inquiry, with key participants just coming up with useful evidence.

'This should all be being handled by the police, not the BBC press office. If this was any other organisation, they would be getting a heavy knock on the door from police officers.'

The exact wording of the letter by Diana, who died in Paris in August 1997, had never been seen publicly until today.

It was supposedly couriered from Kensington Palace in 1996 to satisfy BBC top brass that she was happy with her interview, following revelations that Bashir had used forged bank statements to trick her into granting it.
The letter was written by Princess Diana to journalist Martin Bashir and related to her bombshell 1995 Panorama interview

The letter was written by Princess Diana to journalist Martin Bashir and related to her bombshell 1995 Panorama interview
The exact wording of the Diana letter had never been seen publicly until today as the report into the interview was released

The exact wording of the Diana letter had never been seen publicly until today as the report into the interview was released

A history of the flagship programme records that Panorama editor Steve Hewlett, who died in 2017, said he would provide proof there was nothing wrong with the interview.
Full statements given by key figures in response to Lord Dyson's report

Martin Bashir, who interviewed Princess Diana

'This is the second time that I have willingly fully co-operated with an investigation into events more than 25 years ago. I apologised then, and I do so again now, over the fact that I asked for bank statements to be mocked up. It was a stupid thing to do and was an action I deeply regret. But I absolutely stand by the evidence I gave a quarter of a century ago, and again more recently. I also reiterate that the bank statements had no bearing whatsoever on the personal choice by Princess Diana to take part in the interview. Evidence handed to the inquiry in her own handwriting (and published alongside the report today) unequivocally confirms this, and other compelling evidence presented to Lord Dyson reinforces it. In fact, despite his other findings, Lord Dyson himself in any event accepts that the princess would probably have agreed to be interviewed without what he describes as my 'intervention'. It is saddening that this single issue has been allowed to overshadow the princess' brave decision to tell her story, to courageously talk through the difficulties she faced and to help address the silence and stigma that surrounded mental health issues all those years ago. She led the way in addressing so many of these issues and that's why I will always remain immensely proud of that interview.'

Lord Tony Hall, former BBC director-general, who was director of news and current affairs when the Diana interview was screened

'I have read Lord Dyson's report, and I accept that our investigation 25 years ago into how Panorama secured the interview with Princess Diana fell well short of what was required. In hindsight, there were further steps we could and should have taken following complaints about Martin Bashir's conduct. I was wrong to give Martin Bashir the benefit of the doubt, basing that judgement as I did on what appeared to be deep remorse on his part. Throughout my 35-year career at the BBC, I have always acted in ways I believe were fair, impartial and with the public interest front and centre. While Lord Dyson does not criticise my integrity, I am sorry that our investigation failed to meet the standards that were required.'

Mark Killick, a senior producer on Panorama

'Lord Dyson's report shows that what Martin Bashir did was disgraceful and what the BBC management did was little better. When I first found out what had happened, I consulted a BBC lawyer, then talked to Bashir and senior colleagues before using the editorial referral route. I knew when I did it that the BBC might react badly, but I had no idea just how far they would go to try and discredit me. Whilst this happened some time ago, the BBC should give a commitment to its staff that they can safely raise the sort of matter that I was faced with without losing their job or having the BBC's vast publicity machine unleashed against them.'

Lord Birt, director-general of the BBC at the time of the interview

'We now know that the BBC harboured a rogue reporter on Panorama who fabricated an elaborate, detailed but wholly false account of his dealings with Earl Spencer and Princess Diana. This is a shocking blot on the BBC's enduring commitment to honest journalism, and it is a matter of the greatest regret that it has taken 25 years for the full truth to emerge. As the director-general at the time, I offer my deep apologies to Earl Spencer and to all others affected.'

Soon afterwards, the handwritten note arrived, apparently to confirm Diana had given the interview freely, and her decision to do so was not influenced by any documents.

Insiders assume it was Bashir who procured the note, but its exact provenance had never been confirmed. After its arrival, senior manager Tim Suter was quoted as saying: 'We could relax.'

But incredibly, the note then went missing. Before it was discovered last November, Lord Grade said: 'We don't know if that letter was just another forgery. We don't know, because it's disappeared, conveniently.'

It comes as the official inquiry concluded that Bashir used 'deceitful behaviour' and was in 'serious breach' of the BBC's producer guidelines to secure his interview with Diana.

The BBC 'fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark' in a subsequent investigation, according to the report by Lord Dyson.

The former master of the rolls and head of civil justice was appointed to look into the circumstances surrounding the explosive 1995 interview, which famously featured Diana saying: 'Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.'

Bashir breached BBC rules by mocking up fake bank statements and showing them to Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, to gain access to the princess, the report said.

In response to Lord Dyson's findings, Bashir apologised, saying the faking of bank statements was 'an action I deeply regret' but added he felt it had 'no bearing whatsoever on the personal choice by Princess Diana to take part in the interview'.

Senior BBC executives were criticised over a 1996 internal investigation which examined the mocked-up documents relating to the earl's former employee, as it tried to determine whether or not the princess had been misled, with a key piece of evidence, a note from Diana, suggesting she had not.

The report said: 'Without justification, the BBC fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark by covering up in its press logs such facts as it had been able to establish about how Mr Bashir secured the interview and failing to mention Mr Bashir's activities or the BBC investigations of them on any news programme.'

Responding to the report, Bashir said: 'This is the second time that I have willingly fully co-operated with an investigation into events more than 25 years ago. I apologised then, and I do so again now, over the fact that I asked for bank statements to be mocked up. It was a stupid thing to do and was an action I deeply regret. But I absolutely stand by the evidence I gave a quarter of a century ago, and again more recently.'

Bashir, who was the BBC News religion editor, announced last week he was quitting the BBC on health grounds as he has been seriously unwell with Covid-19 related complications.

His statement further added: 'I also reiterate that the bank statements had no bearing whatsoever on the personal choice by Princess Diana to take part in the interview. Evidence handed to the inquiry in her own handwriting (and published alongside the report today) unequivocally confirms this, and other compelling evidence presented to Lord Dyson reinforces it. In fact, despite his other findings, Lord Dyson himself in any event accepts that the Princess would probably have agreed to be interviewed without what he describes as my 'intervention'.

'It is saddening that this single issue has been allowed to overshadow the Princess' brave decision to tell her story, to courageously talk through the difficulties she faced, and, to help address the silence and stigma that surrounded mental health issues all those years ago. She led the way in addressing so many of these issues and that's why I will always remain immensely proud of that interview.'

Former director-general Lord Tony Hall, who was director of BBC news and current affairs when the Diana interview was screened, has apologised that the inquiry 'fell well short of what was required'.
Diana, Princess of Wales with Prince William and Prince Harry in September 1995. She died in Paris in August 1997

Diana, Princess of Wales with Prince William and Prince Harry in September 1995. She died in Paris in August 1997
Lord Dyson carried out the report into how former BBC News religion editor Martin Bashir landed the Panorama interview

Lord Dyson carried out the report into how former BBC News religion editor Martin Bashir landed the Panorama interview

He said: 'I have read Lord Dyson's report, and I accept that our investigation 25 years ago into how Panorama secured the interview with Princess Diana fell well short of what was required. In hindsight, there were further steps we could and should have taken following complaints about Martin Bashir's conduct.

'I was wrong to give Martin Bashir the benefit of the doubt, basing that judgment as I did on what appeared to be deep remorse on his part. Throughout my 35-year career at the BBC, I have always acted in ways I believe were fair, impartial and with the public interest front and centre.

'While Lord Dyson does not criticise my integrity, I am sorry that our investigation failed to meet the standards that were required.'

Diana's Panorama interview in 1995 sent shockwaves through the monarchy with details about the state of her marriage to the Prince of Wales.

Earl Spencer claimed that in the weeks before the programme, Bashir showed him forged bank statements that related to alleged payments made to his sister's former private secretary Patrick Jephson and another former royal household member by the security services.

The documents falsely suggested the individuals were being paid for keeping the princess under surveillance.

He also showed him mocked-up documents, relating to a former employee of the earl, that Bashir also used as he tried to gain access to the princess.
Attachments
diana letter to bbc bashir panorama.jpg
martin bashir diana envelope.jpg
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

'SAS assassinated Diana by shining light into her driver's face': Extraordinary claim by special forces soldier who gave William advanced driving lessons said to be reason why Scotland Yard has reopened case
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ssons.html

Claims made wife of former SAS soldier interviewed by Scotland Yard have prompted police to reopen case
Woman claims 'individuals in royal inner circle' instructed soldier to shine light into Paris tunnel to blind Diana's driver and force him to crash
'Soldier N' is said to have revealed theory after teaching Prince William how to drive in 2008
Investigation could unearth recordings of her final moments after security source reveals phones were bugged

By Jennifer Smith and Craig Mackenzie and Mia De Graaf

Published: 02:05, 15 September 2013 | Updated: 10:46, 16 September 2013

e-mail


Claims: Scotland Yard is assessing allegations made by a soldier that Princess Diana was assassinated by the SAS

Claims: Scotland Yard has reportedly interviewed the wife of a soldier that said Princess Diana was assassinated by the SAS

An SAS soldier claimed Princess Diana was killed after a member of the elite unit shone a light in her driver's face causing him to crash, it has been claimed.

The man, known only as Soldier N, is said to have made the astonishing allegations to his wife after taking Prince William on an advanced driving course in 2008.

Scotland Yard reportedly decided to review the historic case 16 years after Diana's death in a Paris underpass, after interviewing the woman who insists her former husband was telling the truth.

And in a dramatic twist, the investigation could unearth recordings of the crash after security experts today revealed Diana's phone was bugged.

It is understood the recent development comes after Soldier N's ex-wife told police last month her husband revealed the secret when he was teaching William how to drive with SAS colleagues.

'We were talking about it...and I said it was sad that his mum wasn't there to see it.

'Then he said one of the guys was responsible for the accident, for the death of Diana. I was shocked. I believed what he said', the Sunday Mirror has reported.

When the woman quizzed her husband about his theory he reportedly told her the SAS had been following Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, who also died in the accident, and that a light was shone into the Paris tunnel before their car crashed.

When she asked him how anyone could do something like that he allegedly responded: 'It's an order, a job's a job.'

The wife reportedly claimed her husband had told her the 'hit' had been instructed by individuals in the royal inner circle because they disapproved of Diana's relationship with Fayed.

The forthcoming investigation will probe claims today from a key source in the UK security industry that GCHQ was remotely taping Diana and Dodi up until the moment of the crash.

The source told the Sunday Express the controversial couple had their phones tapped.

It follows news confirmed by a French inquiry that CCTV images of Diana's final hours, supposedly lost, have been held in secret.

The source, who worked in 'black ops', told the paper: 'There is no doubt that this technology was used on Diana and all around her, and for very human reasons she was regularly listened to live in the moment.'

He added, because she was a prime intelligence target, GCHQ operatives 'would have wanted and had the capacity to listen live to the conversations in the car as it sped away from the Ritz.'

Diana, 36, Fayed, 42, and their driver Henri Paul, 41, were killed in the crash in 1997. The Princess' bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones was seriously injured.
RELATED ARTICLES

Previous
1
Next

Estranged wife of SAS soldier behind Princess Diana murder...
17 years on, the heart surgeon Diana called Mr Wonderful:...

Share this article
Share

Soldier N, a former sniper, told his former wife, who revealed the conversation to her own mother years later when asked who would possibly have carried out the murder.
Crash: Conspiracy theories have long surrounded Diana's death in Paris in 1997 despite the official finding that it was an accident caused by paparazzi photographers

Crash: Conspiracy theories have long surrounded Diana's death in Paris in 1997 despite the official finding that it was an accident caused by paparazzi photographers

She alleged a white car and motorbike were involved in the plot which enlisted the services of one of Soldier N's former SAS colleagues.

Al Fayed's father, Mohammed Al Fayed has always asserted the pair's deaths were the result of a planned murder at the hands of the British Establishment and MI6, and similarly claims a white Fiat was involved in the crash but has never been traced.

The woman and her mother reportedly met with detectives last month including a senior officer who worked on the original Operation Paget investigation into Diana's death.

The two women offered convincing accounts of what caused the crash.

The soldier's former wife insisted he had made the claims two years before the break up of their marriage at a time when he confided in her with full trust.
Couple: Diana and Dodi pictured on CCTV at the Ritz Hotel in Paris just hours before the fatal crash

Couple: Diana and Dodi pictured on CCTV at the Ritz Hotel in Paris just hours before the fatal crash

When asked by officers why she hadn't reported her husband's theory earlier the woman said she had been sworn to secrecy.

The woman's mother first alerted authorities to the claims in September 2011 in a letter to Dyfed Powys Police after her daughter and son-in-law divorced.

She reportedly also wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron, Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and army head General Sir Peter Wall about the Soldier N's aggressive behavior following the break down of his marriage.

It is believed these correspondences contained details of the plot.

Though the woman claims to have received acknowledgements from Downing Street and General Wall, neither made any mention of Diana or any suspicion surrounding her death.

In 2011 Dyfed Powys Polcie seized a gun and ammunition from Soldier N's marital home after his mother-in-law reported his tendencies for violent behavior.
Last journey: Diana leaves the Ritz Hotel shortly before her death in the Paris underpass

Last journey: Diana leaves the Ritz Hotel shortly before her death in the Paris underpass

Diana is pictured moments before the crash which the woman claims was caused after an SAS soldier shone a light into the eyes of driver, Henri Paul (right). Diana's bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones (left) was the accident's sole survivor

Diana is pictured moments before the crash which the woman claims was caused after an SAS soldier shone a light into the eyes of driver, Henri Paul (right). Diana's bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones (left) was the accident's only survivor

The man was jailed for two years by a military court last May after admitting illegal possession of a firearm, but was freed in July and later discharged from service.

Later that month the man appeared in the court martial for his former SAS housemate, Danny Nightingale, 38, for illegal possession of a pistol and ammunition.

It was during this time the allegations about Diana's death were revealed.

An inquest into the accident found Diana and Al Fayed died unlawfully as the result of gross negligence of driver, Henri Paul, who was said to have been drinking before the crash.
Post Reply