Diana Death: New Witness

[Ron Ecker]

Based on the article, it seems very unlikely that the ambulance crew were in on a conspiracy if there was one. It states that the doctors at the hospital were in phone contact with the doctors at the scene from the beginning. If they did not know them personally, I would think that the hospital doctors would sense something wrong if they were talking to imposters.

Apparently what might look to others like gross and deliberate negligence by the ambulance crew in getting Diana to the hospital at a snail's pace is just the way the French like to do it.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

One of the most intriguing and, from Diana’s point of view, ominous, pre-assassination pieces on her appeared in the Guardian’s Outlook section in mid-May 1993.

Jointly attributed to Martin Kettle (a New Labour bootlicker, but a well-connected one), Richard Norton-Taylor (no stranger he to MI6) and Michael White (a political correspondent ever willing & able to discern wisdom in our unelected rulers), it bore the snappy title “Diana may be a loose cannon on the English flagship. But its officers are also feeling the heat. Accustomed to greatness, the English ruling class is being destabilised and it is reacting with venom,” Saturday, 15 May 1993, p.23.

...

Much as the American ruling class was being destablized by President Kennedy. Diana have that, and the dead peacenik factor, in common.

Though making a passing nod in the direction of her utility to Rupert Murdoch’s campaign against the traditional Right in Britain, the article was primarily concerned with Diana’s serious flirtation with conversion to Catholicism. (Her papal pied piper was Dom Henry Wansborough, the Benedictine monk who was master of St. Benet’s Hall, Oxford, and a former housemaster of her “friend” James Gilbey at Ampleforth.) There followed a surprisingly serious consideration of the implications of such a conversion for the Church of England, the Monarchy – and the intelligence services. The most interesting passages in that meditation follow. Ignore the absurd bit about MI5 officers deferring to “no other power” – you can’t become head of either MI5 or MI6 without CIA approval:

All of which provides ample justification… for the alleged interest of the security services. MI5’s task is to protect “national security”. This is defined as safeguarding “the state and the community against threats to their survival or well-being”. Conceivably, actions and decisions by individual members of the royal family – even the heir to the throne and certainly his estranged wife – could be seen as just such a threat.

Faced with such a problem the response of the security services epitomises many of the tantalising contradictions which run through the culture and institutions of the English ruling-class in this swirling situation. Officers of MI5 – responsible for the “defence of the realm” – say they owe their allegiance to the “Crown”. They defer to no other power. They have used this in the past to justify operations against MPs and ministers and – in the case of Harold Wilson’s Labour administration – the elected government of the day.

They therefore have a double interest in the maintenance of the monarchy. The Crown is their protection. It also embodies and stands at the head of the shared values of the traditional establishment, which includes army officers (some of whom are court officials, while others are apparently in the Prince’s circle of advisers) as well as senior MI5 and MI6 officers.

Yet the workings of this network are labyrinthine. Sir Colin McColl, known as C, for “Chief” of MI6, regularly communicates with the Queen’s private secretary, currently Sir Robin Fellowes, who is also, to complicate things further, Diana’s brother-in-law. MI6 enjoyed a special relationship with the Queen and her Palace advisers. Adverse reports about their behaviour have been included in classified diplomatic telegrams from British missions overseas, concerned about the damage the continuing scandals are inflicting on British “prestige”.

As is obvious, this was well-informed, shrewd and deeply serious stuff – and entirely forgotten in the wake of Diana’s death, most notably by that obsessive attacker of things even remotely conspiratorial, the Guardian, the very paper in which it had appeared.

Paul

Good find Paul. It reads like a heavy handed warning to her.

I had no idea she was considering a religious conversion.

If that's true then I'm starting to see almost as many motives as there were in President Kennedy's murder.

The difference being the people who ordered the murder are much more obvious in the case of Diana.

Another commonality is the big underlying cover story.

With the CIA the cover story is that they're and intelligence agency when in fact they're corporate assassins.

With the crown the story is that the royals are just figureheads with no real vestige of power. That is obviously not true, based on the murder of Di and on this article where they make it clear that they will do anything to preserve the monarchy.

I keep reading that the Queen is one of the richest women in the country/world (e.g., http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/news_items/20...its_april.html). If someone is that rich, and has been for a long long time, they are powerful. They are not just a figurehead or symbol or tourist attraction.

[Myra Bronstein]

Based on the article, it seems very unlikely that the ambulance crew were in on a conspiracy if there was one. It states that the doctors at the hospital were in phone contact with the doctors at the scene from the beginning. If they did not know them personally, I would think that the hospital doctors would sense something wrong if they were talking to imposters.

Apparently what might look to others like gross and deliberate negligence by the ambulance crew in getting Diana to the hospital at a snail's pace is just the way the French like to do it.

Is that what you got from it Ron?

I got a different read on it.

I don't think it's "just the way the French like to do it" when it's a clear case of internal bleeding so time is the critical factor:

"Yet The Scotsman has learned that the first medical personnel to reach the scene of the crash realised very quickly that Diana was bleeding internally. A doctor said: "She was sweating and her blood pressure had dropped. She had the external signs of internal haemorrhage." British medical experts say that if this assessment is accurate it is increasingly difficult to understand why Diana was not taken to hospital immediately."

If that's just the way the French like to do it then why are the authors of the article still asking why it was done that way?

"What is puzzling about the treatment offered to Diana is that she was not hospitalised until her condition had deteriorated to a critical extent." And "No convincing explanation has been offered for the delay."

If the authors are buying the explanation that it is just the way the French like to do it then why are they continuing to say there is no convincing explanation?

In fact they continue to pursue an explanation throughout the column:

"Asked why Diana's arrival at hospital was delayed for so long he said: "I think it took a long time to get her out of the car. I think she was trapped and had to be cut out by the fire brigade. What do the fire brigade say?" The fire brigade refused to confirm any details." But they've already revealed that she was NOT trapped in the car, so that's a lie. Why are those being interviewed continuing to lie about that?

And how does one explain the fact that the motorcycle escorts were lost while the ambulance drove at "a snail's pace"?

How is that even possible?

The article clarified that it was instantly recognized that she was bleeding internally, that in that case it's critical to quickly get her into surgery, instead hours went by and she was (supposedly) allowed to bleed to death, during which "the French interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, and the police chief, Philippe Massoni, were in a state of panic, fearing the ambulance had disappeared." Why would they be panicked if it wasn't taking longer than expected?

The authors continue to hammer away on the same point until the end of the article:

"The French authorities are extremely sensitive about the suggestion that the princess should have received hospital treatment earlier than she did. Yesterday, neither the fire brigade nor the ambulance service would comment on suggestions that her move to hospital was delayed for too long. "

And they hammer away because, as they stated, they have received "no convincing explanation."

That is hardly reassurance that she was not murdered.

Quite the opposite.

[Ron Ecker]

I think she was probably murdered, I just question whether the ambulance crew was in on it. These were apparently doctors, in phone communication with other doctors at the hospital. I think it's highly unlikely that real French doctors could be recruited to take part in an assassination of an English princess. One maybe, but a crew of them?

I agree that the French way of treating such cases doesn't fully account for the delay in getting her to the hospital. I don't know what accounts for it, if these were real doctors, as appears to be the case. It would be helpful to know their names and if they are still working accident cases, as I would assume they are.

I don't understand the status of this whole case. I thought that an inquest or whatever had been completed under some English lord and a whitewash report duly rendered.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I'm still far from convinced but......

Lets say the plotters knew about this difference in clinical management of accident victims, it gives them plausible denial on the time delay factor. Making Paris an attractive assassination spot.

[Kathleen Collins]

Paul wrote: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.

Len replied: It’s not uncommon for mistaken information to be reported in breaking news stories (The infamous ‘Dewey Wins’ headline comes to mind) are can you. This seems to be based on the account of a single witness who was driving by.)

I appear to have caught you on an "off" day, Len.

Revisit my post. My point was that both the wife and I saw the footage of the Merc upside down on the Sunday morning's TV coverage. We didn't need confirmation of the fact - which I strongly suspect contributed to the delay in getting Diana to hospital, as it was clear the door of the upside down vehicle wouldn't open cleanly - and I really paid no heed to this element of the newspaper coverage on Sunday* because it was such an obvious and unremarkable thing to say (that the vehicle came to rest upside down). It was only retrospectively that it assumed significance as recreation after recreation omitted this blatant fact.

Paul

*The story made the later editions of all the Sunday heavyweights available in this part of northern England.

Here are 2 pictures. One is of the car. The other is Diana in the car. Both photos are here for research purposes only.

Kathy

Edited August 16, 2007 by Kathleen Collins

[Myra Bronstein]

I'm still far from convinced but......

Lets say the plotters knew about this difference in clinical management of accident victims, it gives them plausible denial on the time delay factor. Making Paris an attractive assassination spot.

You're raising an excellent point.

I've been assuming that the perps chose an outside country to muddy the water, introduce laws the average Brit is unaware of, divert suspicion, and just generally increase chaos and therefore the smokescreen. But I'm not knowledgeable enough about French law to point to anything specific that would benefit the plotters. Now you just pointed to a biggie. The problem with an "accident" is that the victim could survive.

I wonder how long it took to get Trevor Rees-Jones to the hospital. Will it provide a point of contrast with Diana's treatment, or reinforce the idea that French ambulances are escargot? I'll have to look into that.

[Myra Bronstein]

Here are 2 pictures. One is of the car. The other is Diana in the car. Both photos are here for research purposes only.

Kathy

Why does it look like that guy's hand is photoshopped?

Edited August 16, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I'm still far from convinced but......

Lets say the plotters knew about this difference in clinical management of accident victims, it gives them plausible denial on the time delay factor. Making Paris an attractive assassination spot.

You're raising an excellent point.

I've been assuming that the perps chose an outside country to muddy the water, introduce laws the average Brit is unaware of, divert suspicion, and just generally increase chaos and therefore the smokescreen. But I'm not knowledgeable enough about French law to point to anything specific that would benefit the plotters. Now you just pointed to a biggie. The problem with an "accident" is that the victim could survive.

I wonder how long it took to get Trevor Rees-Jones to the hospital. Will it provide a point of contrast with Diana's treatment, or reinforce the idea that French ambulances are escargot? I'll have to look into that.

Myra, I have always believed that the point of Dallas as the assassination ground zero, as opposed to say New York, was simply the amount of hate that existed towards Kennedy there, if LHO, the patsy de jour failed for some reason, multiple others existed, the plotters were in fact almost spoilt for choise. And of course it keeps researchers busy chasing up these multiples. Hence Dallas=hate, Paris=time delay explainable by clinical management?

[Kathleen Collins]

Here are 2 pictures. One is of the car. The other is Diana in the car. Both photos are here for research purposes only.

Kathy

Why does it look like that guy's hand is photoshopped?

I knew someone was going to ask me that. I rubbed a headline off the picture and accidentally rubbed part of the man's finger off. I used the Paint program on my computer to put it back. But the picture otherwise is legitimate. I was trying to show what state Diana was in.

Kathy

Edited August 17, 2007 by Kathleen Collins

[Myra Bronstein]

Here are 2 pictures. One is of the car. The other is Diana in the car. Both photos are here for research purposes only.

Kathy

Why does it look like that guy's hand is photoshopped?

I knew someone was going to ask me that. I rubbed a headline off the picture and accidentally rubbed part of the man's finger off. I used the Paint program on my computer to put it back. But the picture otherwise is legitiment. I was trying to show what state Diana was in.

Kathy

Tried to slip one by us eh Kathy?

Tough crowd.

Thanks for posting the pix.

[Myra Bronstein]

I'm still far from convinced but......

Lets say the plotters knew about this difference in clinical management of accident victims, it gives them plausible denial on the time delay factor. Making Paris an attractive assassination spot.

You're raising an excellent point.

I've been assuming that the perps chose an outside country to muddy the water, introduce laws the average Brit is unaware of, divert suspicion, and just generally increase chaos and therefore the smokescreen. But I'm not knowledgeable enough about French law to point to anything specific that would benefit the plotters. Now you just pointed to a biggie. The problem with an "accident" is that the victim could survive.

I wonder how long it took to get Trevor Rees-Jones to the hospital. Will it provide a point of contrast with Diana's treatment, or reinforce the idea that French ambulances are escargot? I'll have to look into that.

Myra, I have always believed that the point of Dallas as the assassination ground zero, as opposed to say New York, was simply the amount of hate that existed towards Kennedy there, if LHO, the patsy de jour failed for some reason, multiple others existed, the plotters were in fact almost spoilt for choise. And of course it keeps researchers busy chasing up these multiples. Hence Dallas=hate, Paris=time delay explainable by clinical management?

Makes sense Steve.

Dallas equates to hate as far as I'm concerned.

Though there were supposedly plots in Miami and Chicago that fell through.

I think Miami would have fit right into their plans (oh those hot-headed Castro Cubans).

But Chicago? The city that won him the election. That one doesn't seem to fit.

Anyway, back to Diana, interesting suggestion that Paris was known to have stationary ambulances and the perps factored that in. Very possible.

Back to the motive (I'm all over the place tonight), I read some online remarks opining that Diana was the biggest threat to the British monarchy since Oliver Cromwell. Strong statement. Don't know if it's true, but she was a very big threat I think.

[Charles Drago]

Myra,

You -- and so many others -- reference "[supposed] plots in Miami and Chicago".

I'm of the opinion that these rumors were designed to flood the security system with false plots. To cry wolf, if you will.

The purposes: To minimize the impact of any leaks about the real hit in Dallas, and to reassure the president that, as he said all so tragically, "the Secret Service has taken care of everything." Or words to that direct effect.

One plot. One location.

Charles

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

You -- and so many others -- reference "[supposed] plots in Miami and Chicago".

I'm of the opinion that these rumors were designed to flood the security system with false plots. To cry wolf, if you will.

The purposes: To minimize the impact of any leaks about the real hit in Dallas, and to reassure the president that, as he said all so tragically, "the Secret Service has taken care of everything." Or words to that direct effect.

One plot. One location.

Charles

This sub-thread is continued here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10756

[Pamela Brown]

Back to the motive (I'm all over the place tonight), I read some online remarks opining that Diana was the biggest threat to the British monarchy since Oliver Cromwell. Strong statement. Don't know if it's true, but she was a very big threat I think.

I agree with that statement. Diana was indeed a threat to the monarchy. It's a wonder it wasn't permanently destroyed when Diana died. If the Queen had not lowered the flag on BP (finally) and allowed a public funeral for Diana, I believe it might have been.

Diana exposed the reality of life with the royals in (to some) excruciating detail. She drew a line in the sand with her tv interview. She took up causes such as leprosy and land mines which the royals wouldn't touch. She did it deliberately.

Diana acted from the heart. That created endless and unforgivable confrontations. Diana was showing them what it meant to be really royal, in spirit and not just in name. Then when she was divorced, they stripped her of her HRH. That was the ultimate indignity from their standpoint. They must have breathed huge sighs of relief at her passing.

In addition, Diana knew how to play to the press. She was the victim. She was the young girl manipulated by those she trusted into a diabolical marriage where Charles loved another woman who wasn't even pretty. Diana was also a wonderful mother, and everyone loved her for that. So, whatever Diana did and said had far more weight than anything anyone else could muster.

The monarchy has had to become more friendly and 'warm-and-fuzzy' to survive. Too bad that doesn't come from the heart.