An inquest of an inquest:
The following documentary asks these questions:
Was it pure coincidence that Diana told people she would be deliberately killed in a car crash?
Why did the CCTV cameras along the route apparently fail to record anything?
Were the driver's blood samples tampered with to make him appear wildly drunk even though he seemed to be sober?
Why were Diana's phone calls being bugged by the secret service?
Who was driving the white Fiat Uno who may have caused the crash?
And last but certainly not least, why weren't the press more suspicious?
The unelected extended family of extremely wealthy aristocratic free-loaders, the Royals, like to present themselves as a benign and freedom loving tradition, thanks mostly to their highly paid establishment sycophants who wouldn't dare cross them. Wouldn't dare cross them? Wait. I thought the royals were figureheads whose birthright is upheld only to entertain and charm the masses with their quaint pageantry.
Not true. I mean, the Queen has the power to unseat an elected Prime Minister. That's right. According to the Constitution, all public power (executive, legislative and judicial) is created and commanded by the Queen. She has the power to: dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister (she may choose a Prime Minister of her own choice, though nominally she appoints the individual most capable of commanding the House of Commons); to dismiss and appoint other ministers; to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament; to grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law; to commission officers in the Armed Forces; to command the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom; to appoint members to the Queen's Council; to issue and withdraw passports; to grant Prerogative of mercy (though Capital Punishment is abolished, this power is still used to remedy errors in sentence calculation); to grant honors; to create corporations via Royal Charter. She also has the power to shape foreign policy by: the power to ratify and make treaties; to declare War and Peace; to deploy the Armed Forces overseas; to recognize states; to credit and receive diplomats. Does that sound benign, or as if the Queen's merely a figurehead to you?
Which brings us to the car "accident" that killed Princess Diana, her driver, and her betrothed, Dodi Fayed. It was just after midnight, on August 31, 1997, that the much celebrated couple and their driver, Henri Paul, left the Paris Ritz in a Mercedes and then proceeded to crash into a concrete pillar in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel, ten years later, leading to the largest, most sensational inquest in British history. Hundreds of witnesses were called.
"Whether you think it's an accident or murder, it was chillingly convenient for the Windsors that Diana died when she did."Before continuing to read, keep in mind that there is no doubt that the media had already reached their verdict long before the inquest started, while at the same time, declaring it a waste of time and money. Many media organizations, including the BBC, sent their royal reporters to cover it, rather than their legal ones. Even though Diana was no longer a royal at the time of her death After all, their job is to suck up to the palace and present the royals in a favorable light.
The French report of the "accident" was kept secret. The British report was riddled with contradictions. Several coroners came and went when attempts to hold the inquiry without a jury was finally overturned.
The inquest was held at the Royal Family's own court, Royal Courts of Justice. So is it any wonder that the royal representative in charge, the so called "judge", or coroner as it's called in the court system, in this case, Lord Justice Scott Baker, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen, has already decided that the key royal suspects need not even appear at the inquest in order to be questioned?
From the outset, it was clear that the coroner was on the side of the establishment, which is not surprising considering he is a part of it. He led the jury in the direction of it being an accident, despite the fact that right from the start, the circumstances surrounding the crash were very suspicious. Within minutes after the crash, the French police allowed a road sweeping van to wash away all of the evidence. That's exactly what the Pakistan police did on December 27, 2007 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan after Benezir Bhuto was assassinated.
Moreover, less than one day after the accident, the French authorities leaked a story to the press that this was an accident and that the driver was "dunk as a pig" before the blood test results were even complete. Later it came out that he only consumed two Ricards, one-quarter the alcohol the French authorities claimed.
The coroner even prevented the jurors from knowing the state of the relationship between Dodi and Diana. Prince Philip's very hostile letters to the Princess were redacted, or "censored into incomprehensibility." One witness, Simone Simmons, a friend of Diana, received a gag order, stating she could not mention these letters. She was not the only one to receive one. Makes you wonder how many people were paid off to stay silent.
In the days/weeks/months leading up to her murder, Princess Dianna and her affair with Dodi Fayed plastered the tabloid headlines, speculating on possible marriage, baby, etc. Diana said,
"The most daunting aspect was of the media attention, that I seemed to be on the front of the newspaper every single day, and the higher the media puts you...place you, the bigger the drop."The inquest exploited this prior media frenzy for all it was worth by devoting several weeks to a minute investigation of her period, contraceptives and her sexual habits. Was she, in fact, impregnated by Dodi. It was as if the establishment wanted to de-mythologize her in the eyes of ordinary people.
Diana died after arriving at the hospital and although having been stripped of her royal status in life, in death, her corpse mysteriously became royal property. Within hours, royal representatives had given orders for her body to be partially embalmed, a process that conveniently made it impossible for anyone to tell if she had been pregnant.
What's more, Diana's attorney gave a sworn statement from Diana, predicting her death in a car "accident"--devastating evidence about Diana's security--and handed it over to Police Commissioner Condon (1993-2000) who concealed it for three years, who then passed it on to his replacement, Stevens, who concealed it for another 3 years. Both were made Lords by the queen for their good work.
Another thing, Diana habitually wore a seat belt with the exception of that fateful night when she sat in the rear right seat. Why? Well, when the car was subsequently examined by a crash expert on behalf of Metropolitan police , the rear right seat belt was found to be defective, "jammed in the retracted position because part of the integral mechanism had become displaced." Had it been tampered with? And why wasn't the inquest told about this?
Now most people still blame the paparazzi for causing the "accident", however, it was clearly demonstrated that they were not involved. While it's true some of the paparazzi outside the hotel set off in hot pursuit, they never caught up. Their scooters and motorcycles were unable to keep up with the much more powerful car. Police evidence given at the inquest confirmed, by the time the Mercedes entered the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel all the pursuing paparazzi had been left far behind.
Yet several witnesses had seen several motorcycles and a white Fiat Uno surrounding the Mercedes, along with several motorcycles, and blocking its progress as it entered the tunnel. They saw a very bright flash and then saw the white fiat collide with the Mercedes, which then lost control and crashed headfirst into a concrete pillar. Who was driving the other vehicles?? Because the paparazzi had been excluded after a very close analysis of all the known paparazzi who were on duty that night and they could all be accounted for.
What about the infamous cameras embedded all over the UK? Well, the always on CCTV at the entrance of the tunnel was conveniently switched off when Dodi and Diana's car entered its underground passage. But too many witnesses identified the car, and motorcycles, not to mention, the paint from the white Fiat Uno was found on the Mercedes. So who was driving this car? It's believed that James Andanson, a millionaire photographer, who owned a white Fiat Uno, connected to intelligence, and who was not present at the hotel when Diana and Dodi left, drove the car. Also, he gave contradictory alibis. Moreover, in the year 2000, Andanson's body was found in the trunk of a burned up car with two bullet holes in his skull, and no keys to be found anywhere. Despite those facts, the authorities declared it a suicide. Really? He drove the car without keys, shot himself in the head, twice! and then set the car on fire.
What about the "drunken pig" of a driver, Henri Paul?
Well, if he was really a chronic alcoholic, this would've been diagnosed during the stringent medical evaluation he underwent three days before the crash while renewing his pilot's license...that he passed with flying colors. So why wasn't the doctor who gave him a clean bill of health at the inquest or questioned by the police. In fact, Police Commissioner Stevens (2000-20006) stated to Paul's parents that Henri Paul was not drunk and that he was driving at a lower speed than indicated in the French proceedings.
Six weeks later, after Paul's parents testified at the inquest, Police Commissioner Stevens published a report that Paul was drunk. Henri Paul's residence was searched twice by the French Police. The first time, all that was found was an unopened bottle of champagne and a quarter bottle of a martini which hardly supports the claim that he was an alcoholic. So the police returned a few days later, and this time they found enough alcohol to stock an entire bar!
Here's another thing. The coroner at the inquest said Paul had no links to the security services. But Paul's bank accounts show that he received 349,800 French francs (34,980 pounds) during the final months of his life, mostly by checks. But the inquest never investigated who wrote those checks, nor investigated the transactions on his five credit cards, not to mention his mobile phone records.
That's not all. An autopsy was carried out by Dr. Dominique Lecomte, a doctor notorious in France for covering up medical evidence that would be embarrassing to the state. She committed 58 basic errors during the autopsy. Not only were her results inept, but "biologically inexplicable" as well. Every scientist involved in the inquest signed a joint statement stating that the blood test results for Henri Paul were "biologically inexplicable". There was a good chance that the blood samples were not even from Henri Paul.
But both doctors--Lecomte and Papal--did not attend the inquest even though as citizens of the European Union, they were legally obliged to. They were protected by the French government, who publicly sighted reasons of public order for their refusal, however the real reason was protection of state secrets in the essential interests of the nation.
In 2006, a team of scientists offered to do a DNA analysis of the blood samples to determine if they were in fact, from Henri Paul. The French government told them the samples no longer exist.
And what about the 3 hours and 41 minutes it took to get Princess Diana to the hospital? While Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul died instantly, and the bodyguard Trevor Reese was seriously injured, Diana was still conscious and alert. It was Dr Jean-Marc Martino, an emergency specialist who oversaw the Princess's treatment from shortly after the crash, who made a series of bizarre decisions that sealed her fate. It took an astonishing 37 minutes after the crash for Dr. Martino to remove the still conscious Diana from the Mercedes to the ambulance. The back of the car was undamaged, so there is no excuse for the delay. Then, it took an extraordinary 81 minutes for the ambulance to set off for the hospital, and another inexplicable 1 hour and 43 minutes for the ambulance to travel the three miles of empty roads to finally arrive at the hospital!
At the inquest, experts agreed that Diana's life could've been saved if not for the suspiciously slow and furtive actions of Dr. Martino and his crew.
But, why would anyone, let alone the powerful secret services of France, Britain and America want Diana dead? The secret services would never kill anyone, right? After all, Richard Dearlove, head of British Intelligence in 1997 calmly announced we have never killed anyone in the last 50 years. But Richard Tomlinson, a former MI6 agent gave testimony at the inquest by video link in France that contradicted that absurd statement. He couldn't come to Britain because if he had he would've been arrested. Tomlinson "outlined the execution of an assassination of a Serbian leader--Milosevic-- that involved arranging a car "accident" in a tunnel by flashing a very "bright flashing strobe gun to disorient Milosevec's chauffeur while the cavalcade passed into the tunnel. The advantage of a tunnel crash that there would be fewer incidental witnesses and greater chance of fatality." Sound familiar?
But, still, why would they want to kill Diana? Perhaps, it was her campaign to ban land mines. On January 15, 1997 Diana visited Angola to partake in the greatest photo opportunity the campaign had ever had, followed up in February 1997, by a photo op in Bosnia. Afterwards, she received a call from a British government defense minister who threatened her saying not to meddle in things she doesn't understand, and that accidents happen.
All of her calls were being monitored by British and American secret service. The Americans finally admitted to having over 1200 pages of transcripts in a National Security Council report, dated, January 5. 1999. Her campaign was clearly infuriating the armaments industry
Then, less than three weeks after the crash, the OSLO meeting in Norway, September 19, 1997 began. With Diana out of the way, most of the press didn't even bother attending. And Bill Clinton was the only western leader who voted AGAINST the ban on landmines, something he would've had a hard time doing if he had to look in Diana's eyes.
The only senior representative of the royal household to appear at the inquest was Sir Robert Fellowes, the Queen's private secretary. On Day 68 of the inquest, he stated that he was not at the palace before, during or after Diana's death because he was on vacation. Really?
In The Blair Years: The Alastair Campbell Diaries, Campbell writes of contact with Robert Fellowes from August 31 through September 5, 1997, proving Richard Fellowes was not on vacation and at the very center of Diana's funeral arrangements, overseeing her burial throughout the week. Diana described Fellowes as one of the men that she fears. She said "he hates me and will do anything he can to get me out of the royals." Sir Robert Fellowes was made a lord in 1998 for his good work.
So why weren't the press more suspicious? Well, journalists have to answer to their editors who must answer to their proprietors, and in the UK, they all want knighthoods. The upshot is that most journalists are instinctively pro-establishment, therefore all to willing to believe the official story of Dianas's death even though it does not make any sense. It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding something.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the entire inquest was skillfully manipulated by powerful unelected forces to the advantage of the royal family. This could only happen because Britain is, in essence, a monarchy, not a democracy. Much of Britain still operates on a system of unelected power, and its center are the Windsors, the old aristocracy and their vast wealth. Just as in medieval times British royalty live a life of unfettered privilege, the British taxpayers funding their lavish existence, officially 40 million pounds, unofficially, much, much more.
|The letter Diana wrote to her butler predicting her death|