Jump to content

Diana Death: New Witness


Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Turner
I believe Diana was murdered. It took them 2-3 hours, I believe, to get Diana into an Emergency Room. The nearest hospital was 10 minutes away. They passed it by and another hospital too. The ambulance was moving at 10 mph so she wouldn't go into cardiac arrest because of the ambulance going too fast. Trying to resuscitate her by pressing on her heart was a big mistake -- or was it? If they had gotten her to the hospital, they would have learned that her aorta was ripped open and they were actually killing her. Two ER nurses saw Diana come in white and bloodless and got sick to their stomachs. She was pronounced dead. Then she was partially embalmed.

Kathy

Right, so now the ambulance crew are part of the assassination B)

Lets see, Royal family, MI5, MI6, French secret service, Paris coroners office, French health service, Diana's body guard, and other assorted bogymen to numerous to mention. Did I miss anyone? I hear Elvis is alive and well, and living it up with Hitler in Argentina. I have no time for our "Royal family" and quite frankly wouldn't put much past them, I have no doubt they heaved a collective sigh of relief when the Queen of hearts snuffed it, but this wild baseless speculation is little short of preposterous.

It sounds like the validity of a conspiracy is contingent on your feelings about the victim Stephen.

Not at all Myra, I hated George Wallace, an emotionally stunted racist, but believe he was the victim of a conspracy to prevent him taking votes from tricky. Also Richard Heydrich, and quite possibly that monster Stalin.

I am not saying that Diana wasn't murdered, Brit intell sevices are more than capable, just that I have seen little, apart form pretty baseless speculation, to support this scenario. Still, have a crack at my three questions, who knows you may get me to see the light.

Regards, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, I'll play.

Lets firstly set this event in its historical context. A question.

In your view,What was the reason for Diana's assassination. Another question.

What party/Parties (a) planned it, and (B) carried it out. and lastly.

Why did the murder take the form of a "road accident"

If speculation is all you have please speculate away.

Kathy, I'll ask again. Is it your contention that the ambulance crew that treated Diana were part of the conspiracy.

If we are to make a serious effort to understand how Diana was killed -- an effort that in large measure is informed by what we've experienced during, and learned from, our investigations of the JFK case -- then these questions must remain unaddressed until such time as a plausible, evidence-based assassination argument can be presented.

Again, the logic is unavoidable: "No one wanted her dead" is an entirely nonsensical response to the question, "How did Diana die?" -- the sort of riposte commonly offered by those who would do all in their power to make certain that such queries are never seriously investigated, let alone answered.

And no, I most certainly do not place Steven in that category.

Some immediately valid questions regarding the emergency crew that treated Diana and the procedures they utilized:

Was the long delay in transporting Diana to hospital consistent with standard operating procedure?

Who summoned emergency services?

When did the ambulance arrive?

Who were the members of the crew? What can we determine about their respective backgrounds? Any intel and/or criminal connections? Degrees of experience with auto wreck victims? etc.

Also:

Were emergency personnel unrelated to the ambulance crew on the scene before the ambulance arrived? Before paparazzi arrived? Who summoned them? Were they identified?

What sort of equipment was necessary to remove Diana and Trevor Reese Jones safely from the wreckage?

Who removed them? How long did the process take?

Were Henri Paul and Dodi al-Fayed declared dead prior to removal from the limo? Were their bodies accessible to emergency medical evaluation prior to removal?

How does the condition of the MB as it was transported from the tunnel on a flatbed compare to the limo's condition immediately post-impact?

If the answers to these and hundreds of additional relevant questions posed as part of the investigation of how Diana died support a preliminary conclusion of foul play, then -- and only then -- should we move on to the kinds of questions posed by Steven.

Charles Drago

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we learned nothing from our labors on the JFK case?

Before we start dismissing conspiracy in the death of Diana based upon an assessed unlikelihood of participation by the suspects of the moment, let us focus exclusively on the "how" of the event under scrutiny.

Well said.

Anyone in any doubt that it was an assassination might usefully reflect on perhaps the most blatant lie peddled by the British mainstream media ever since. In every recreation I have seen, we are invited to believe that the Mercedes remained the right way up after the crash. It did not. As both my better half and I saw on television on the morning of the accident, and the next day's newspaper accounts from eyewitnesses confirmed, the car came to rest on its roof.

There is plainly something very sensitive here concerning the speed of the Merc and its subsequent trajectory. The question is, what exactly are they hiding? I wish I knew. But I do know, beyond any doubt, that the media is lying; and doing so in an orchestrated fashion.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since excessive speed (approaching 90 MPH at or near the time of impact) is a key element in the official story of the crash, the MB damned well better be wrecked.

Yet did not more than one of the earliest witnesses at the scene describe a car that had sustained only relatively minor damage?

I've read that the instrument known as the "jaws of life" was used to extricate some of the victims, and this powerful tool can mangle the sturdiest of automotive bodies.

Paul, I'm not familiar with reports of the car being on its roof. Can you provide a reference?

If true: When might the car have been flipped?

Another, seeminging unrelated question: Earliest witnesses (paparazzi) also reported that "emergency personnel" were at the crash site when they (the witnesses) arrived -- which is to say, mere minutes after impact. Who were these people?

I have my own scenario for how the deed many have been executed -- from security stripping to a decoy limo-and-motorcycles caravan deployed to confuse witnesses. But it's only that: ill-informed if imaginative speculation.

For now.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I'm not familiar with reports of the car being on its roof. Can you provide a reference?

“Dodi is killed, Diana badly injured in Paris car crash,” Sunday Times, 31 August 1997, p.1:

“Mike Walker, an American tourist from Ohio, saw Diana’s overturned Mercedes in the aftermath of the crash: ‘We were travelling in the opposite direction and saw the car lying flipped over at the bottom of the hill…’”

I can't find the box with my copies of the papers from Sunday, 31 August, but I did have the above as a handwritten note in a box containing subsequent clippings. From memory, there are several more quotations - most from American eyewitnesses - to this effect in that day's coverage, but that all changes just one day later, in the UK "qualities" at least, on Monday, 1 September. I suspect a survey of US press coverage from the same two days would yield similar results.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just re-reading Prouty's comments on reports from Dallas in the first hour and after [when full control was established over information] and how some of the true details got out in that first hour.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp3_p1.html

My suspicion, too. The JFK testimony it reminded me of came from Norman Similas. Now, that is a reordering of our accepted understanding of what happened comparable to the Diana testimony in the Sunday Times quoted above.

One other obvious trend within British newspapers over the first few weeks after the Diana assassination was a substantial reduction to the speed of the Merc. By about the end of the second week, I recall, it had been roughly halved, from circa 120mph to approx 60mph.

Why this need to change these particular facets of the event, one can only guess.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

Need I be more specific?

Mr. al-Fayed's operations have been penetrated from the very beginning.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Still, have a crack at my three questions, who knows you may get me to see the light.

Regards, Steve.

If you read back over the thread, post #15, you'll see that I already answered your first question:

"In your view,What was the reason for Diana's assassination."

"What party/Parties (a) planned it, and (cool.gif carried it out. and lastly."

The royal of course decided they wanted her dead for reasons stated previously.

British and US intelligence, in tandem, planned it and carried it out with input from the royals.

Why did the murder take the form of a "road accident"

Gee, that's a tough one.

Hmmmmmm, I dunno, maybe so it'd look like an accident?

And because British kings beheading their discarded wives is so last century.

And so they could blame the paparazzi for chasing them to death.

And very likely so they could force the car into the accident with bright lights, side swiping by the fiat, etc.

And so they could keep control of the victims and not lose sight of them to insure the job was done.

I really think this is a pretty straightforward assassination Stephen.

The royals needed a sperm bank for Prince Tampex; she squirted out an heir and a spare; they had no further use for her; she refused to go quietly out to pasture when the royals deemed it time; they had her neutralized.

It's not the convoluted maze that the JFK assassination was and is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

Need I be more specific?

...

Um, yes.

Please and thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

There is plainly something very sensitive here concerning the speed of the Merc and its subsequent trajectory. The question is, what exactly are they hiding? I wish I knew. But I do know, beyond any doubt, that the media is lying; and doing so in an orchestrated fashion.

Paul

Perhaps they changed their story when the security camera recorded contradictory images.

http://tinyurl.com/2akl3e

"Three paparazzi later claimed that Paul departed the Ritz at a high speed. This claim was contradicted by footage from the hotel's security cameras showing the Mercedes leaving at a normal speed, with Paul driving in a responsible manner.

According to the police, Henri Paul's blood alcohol level was very high, yet the Ritz security cameras revealed that Paul arrived at the hotel shortly after 10:00 pm and displayed no erratic behavior while parking his car, nor later in the hotel. Upon arrival at the hotel, Paul was in regular contact with Al Fayed bodyguards Trevor Rees-Jones and "Kes" Wingfield. Neither of them observed any evidence suggesting that Henri Paul was intoxicated."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of interesting material here:

http://www.dianaprincessofwales.net/didbri...dianasdeath.htm

Brief references to the illuminati aside, I chose to ignore that subject, quite the synthesis of facts and conjecture.

Esp interesting:

"Despite her ability to create a media feeding frenzy whenever she appeared in public, Diana was a very lonely and insecure person, resulting in bouts of bulimia. Needing a shoulder to cry on, she developed a very close relationship with her bodyguard, a thirty seven year old Royal Protection Squad Sergeant named Barry Mannakee, although there is no evidence that they were romantically linked. Charles had Mannakee transferred to the Diplomatic Protection Corps after overhearing the bodyguard offering Diana advice regarding Charles' infidelity with Camilla. After his transfer, Mannakee was killed in a collision with a car while a pillion passenger on a motorcycle. According to Major James Hewitt, with whom Diana later had an affair, Diana told him that she was convinced that Mannakee's death was an assassination orchestrated by the Windsor staff and British Intelligence because he knew too much about the affair between Charles and Camilla. Hewitt claims that he similarly was ordered to terminate his relationship with Diana or he would receive the same fate as Barry Mannakee.

...

It was self-evident to the Queen that Diana was wreaking havoc upon the public image of the Royals. After consultations with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister, the Queen ordered Diana and Charles to divorce. Diana received a divorce settlement amounting to seventeen million pounds, but was stunned to learn that she was to be deprived of the "Her Royal Highness" title. This mean act on the part of the Royals possibly contributed to her death. Had she been permitted to retain her HRH title, the government of any nation in which she was traveling would have been obligated to provide her with a VIP full police escort.

...

"It was evident that the planned dinner at the Chez Benoit restaurant was out of the question because of the paparazzi's reckless behavior, so the couple returned to the Ritz, where they had to force their way through another frenzied crowd of paparazzi and had dinner in their sumptuous suite. Security cameras revealed several men in the crowd outside the Ritz who had loitered in the vicinity for much of the day. Former Scotland Yard Chief Superintendent John McNamara, who later was appointed by Mohamed Al Fayed to head an investigation into the crash which ended the lives of the star crossed lovers, identified these loiterers as members of British and foreign intelligence agencies.

...

Diana allegedly underwent two heart attacks between the time of the crash and her arrival at the hospital. Unlike ambulances typically used in most countries, the ambulances of the French emergency service SAMU are actually sophisticated mobile surgical units. It would therefore be readily apparent to the ambulance crew attending to Diana's injuries that a heart specialist would be required after her arrival at the hospital. Incredibly, despite radio communication between the ambulance crew and the hospital staff, no heart specialist was present when the ambulance finally arrived at the hospital, nor had a heart lung machine been prepared ready for Diana's surgery if required. Still, French authorities had found time to summon French politicians, police and British ambassador Sir Michael Jay to the hospital prior to the arrival of the ambulance. Inexplicably, one hour and forty six minutes elapsed between the time of the crash and the arrival of the ambulance at the hospital.

...

Diana was pronounced dead at 4:00 a.m. on the same day that the crash occurred. A very bizarre incident occurred later that morning which clouds the issue of whether or not Diana was pregnant and also suggests an unlawful course of action on the part of the Windsors and French authorities. It is a violation of French law to embalm a body prior to an autopsy, or to embalm a body without the consent of the next of kin, yet a partial embalming of Diana's body above the waist was performed prior to an autopsy and without the consent of the Spencer family. The order to perform the embalming came from the office of Prince Charles at St. James's Palace. This order was a blatant violation of French law since the prince was no longer Diana's husband. Strangely, a hospital spokesperson claimed that a sample of Diana's blood was never taken, which is very odd since they would have needed a sample in order to determine Diana's blood type prior to administering the blood transfusions purportedly given her. The formaldehyde used in the unlawful partial embalming procedure prevented a full autopsy from being conducted later, thus concealing any evidence that Diana was pregnant with Dodi's child

...

After completing an assignment in Belgrade, Tomlinson was invited by an MI6 targeting officer to participate in a plan to assassinate Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. A few days later, the targeting officer handed Tomlinson a formal MI6 document detailing the plan to assassinate Milosevic during his scheduled visit to Geneva. Chillingly, the plan proposed that a flashing strobe light be used to disorient the chauffeur of Milosevic's limo as it passed through a tunnel. According to Tomlinson, the document stated that a tunnel crash was the preferred assassination locale, since it would minimize the number of witnesses and maximizes the possibility that the crash would prove fatal. Tomlinson expressed to his superior his disgust that MI6 would conspire to assassinate a civilian head of state.

...

I suspect an MI6 plan to assassinate Diana using the tunnel scenario was the reason for Mr. Tomlinson's dismissal. There was a distinct risk that he might mention the tunnel scenario in his autobiography, which would account for the strenuous efforts undertaken by MI6 to coerce various publishing houses to refrain from publishing it. Tomlinson eventually succeeded in persuading a Russian publishing house to publish it three years after Diana's death. Eight days after Diana's death, Tomlinson's apartment was burgled; the only item stolen was his laptop computer containing his book manuscript which mentioned the Milosevic crash scenario and Henri Paul's connection with MI6. Two months later, he was jailed under Britain's draconian Official Secrets Act, which conveniently prevented him from alerting investigative journalists about the tunnel scenario and the MI6 connection with Henri Paul.

...

According to the aforementioned Richard Tomlinson, Andanson was a member of UKN. This is a covert department of MI6 consisting of a group of individuals whose regular employment as journalists and paparazzi enable them to keep MI6 informed on the activities of VIP's.

...

In all probability, the white Mercedes observed following the Fiat at high speed was driven by a co-conspirator, who had been assigned to transport Andanson or the motorcyclists away from the crash scene if their vehicles had sustained excessive damage in the incident. If Diana's limo had covertly been fitted with a radio controlled steering system only two weeks prior to the crash, as claimed in the LeWinter documents, an assassin in the white Mercedes with a radio transmitter could have taken over control of the limo and deliberately crashed it into the thirteenth pillar of the tunnel.

In summation, eleven eyewitnesses to the crash made statements which make it abundantly clear that one or possibly two motorcyclists and one pillion passenger were working in conjunction with the driver of the Fiat Uno to precipitate the fatal crash in the Alma tunnel.

...

Motives for Murder

It's not difficult to find a motive for assassinating Diana. The shy mouse that the House of Windsor intended to be used as a brood mare and nothing more, had evolved into a potential dragon slayer. She was intent upon preventing Charles from ever becoming king. Moreover, her mastery over the news media enabled her to publicly upstage the Windsors whenever she elected to do so. Diana's engagement to Dodi was unacceptable to the Windors since it meant that the future step father of Prince William and Harry would be a person of color and a practicing Muslim to boot. One can imagine Prince Charles' fury upon learning that his former wife was being romanced by Dodi Al Fayed of all people, for ten years earlier, a polo team captained by Charles had been beaten by a team led by Dodi!

Another powerful motive for murdering Diana was that she had become a loose cannon, politically speaking. Her aggressive campaigning toward the instituting of a ban on the use of land mines and a reduction in armaments sales, was anathema to the major armaments consortiums such as the Carlyle Group, whose stockholders includes the Bush and bin Laden families, Condoleezza Rice and, by proxy purchase, the House of Windsor. Until the advent of WWII, land mines had been used to impede the progress of enemy troops, but the introduction of tanks equipped with rotary flails which detonated land mines, provided a safe passage through minefields, thus diminishing their effectiveness. Their principal widespread use at the present time is to kill or maim children to prevent them from becoming future soldiers who might kill their aggressors. Cluster bombs serve a similar purpose, which is why they frequently contain bomblets disguised as toys.

At the time of the couple's death, production was scheduled to commence on a movie based upon a screenplay written by Gordon Thomas concerning the abolition of land mines. The executive producer was to have been Diana, with Dodi as producer. The movie was scheduled to star Gene Hackman and Brad Pitt.

...

After arriving at Dodi's apartment in the Range Rover, bodyguard Kez Wingfield and his driver Philippe Dourneau received a message that Diana's limo had crashed. Upon hurrying to the tunnel, Wingfield phoned the Al Fayed headquarters in London, while Dourneau went to the wrecked limo. Dourneau reported to Wingfield that Diana had hurt her legs but otherwise appeared to be fine. Dourneau's account is in accordance with a rumor circulated by the paparazzi that Diana had been photographed through the open rear door of the ambulance and was sitting up at the time.

Both accounts clearly are at variance with the version given by the attending medical personnel. It is self evident from eyewitness statements that the official version of the crash promoted by the French investigative authorities is clearly false. Adding fuel to the fire, a full post mortem on Diana was never conducted in France. In compliance with British law, a second autopsy was conducted in London by the official coroner to the Royal Family. Strangely, a copy of the autopsy report was given to the two pathologists who had performed the partial embalming of Diana in Paris (Professors Lecompte and Lienhart). They were told that it was for their personal use and were ordered not to permit it to be included in the official investigative report of Judge Hervé Stephen. It implies that a massive cover up was perpetrated in order to conceal the fact that Diana was assassinated. If this was indeed the case, can we not think the unthinkable and inquire whether the official claim that Diana died from a ruptured pulmonary vein is totally false and that Diana only sustained minor injuries in the crash, but was murdered either in transit to the hospital, or subsequently in the hospital?"

I wonder how Dodi died in the tunnel, if not from the "accident" itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

Need I be more specific?

...

Um, yes.

Please and thank you.

I refer to attorney Mark Zaid.

Based upon informed analyses of Mr. Zaid's positions on the JFK assassination and personal observation of his intellect and maturity under pressure and in real-time (in Dallas, especially during exchanges with Peter Dale Scott), I am of the opinion that he is, at best, a dupe.

In Mr. Zaid's favor: Perhaps, over the past decade, he has come of age. But given his abject failure to advance his London client's case -- at least to my knowledge -- there is little evidence to support such a hypothesis.

Mohamed al-Fayed eschewed the services of more capable, experienced counsel (in the broadest sense -- such as David Wrone, Gerald McKnight, George Michael Evica, and the aforementioned Professor Scott, for examples; I have no idea if any were approached or, if asked to help, were willing to get involved). In so doing, he in essence brought a knife to a gunfight.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what of Oswald Lewinter?

Hmmm ... The "Oswald" part requires no further commentary.

Then there's Milady de Winter, Cardinal Richelieu's spy in The Three Musketeers.

Let's see ... three musketeers ... the knoll, Dal-Tex, TSBD ...

Oswald Lewinter ... about as subtle as Buck Naked.

Bemused,

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what of Oswald Lewinter?

Hmmm ... The "Oswald" part requires no further commentary.

Then there's Milady de Winter, Cardinal Richelieu's spy in The Three Musketeers.

Let's see ... three musketeers ... the knoll, Dal-Tex, TSBD ...

Oswald Lewinter ... about as subtle as Buck Naked.

Bemused,

Charles

Charles...the three musketeers (gunmen, by definition) were Johnson, Hoover and Dulles.

Or how about Phillips, Hunt and Conein?

Jack :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

Need I be more specific?

...

Um, yes.

Please and thank you.

I refer to attorney Mark Zaid.

Based upon informed analyses of Mr. Zaid's positions on the JFK assassination and personal observation of his intellect and maturity under pressure and in real-time (in Dallas, especially during exchanges with Peter Dale Scott), I am of the opinion that he is, at best, a dupe.

In Mr. Zaid's favor: Perhaps, over the past decade, he has come of age. But given his abject failure to advance his London client's case -- at least to my knowledge -- there is little evidence to support such a hypothesis.

Mohamed al-Fayed eschewed the services of more capable, experienced counsel (in the broadest sense -- such as David Wrone, Gerald McKnight, George Michael Evica, and the aforementioned Professor Scott, for examples; I have no idea if any were approached or, if asked to help, were willing to get involved). In so doing, he in essence brought a knife to a gunfight.

Charles

That's a real shame.

Mr al-Fayed has a strong case, courage, the money and visibility to fight, and the popularity of Diana on his side.

Still, I think it's getting to the point where, as in the JFK case, a sizable majority of people know that Princess Di was assassinated. And I think a lot of that is due to Mr al-Fayed's efforts. So that a form of progress.

I hope he refuses to give up.

Thanks for the explanation Charles.

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...