Saturday, May 25, 2013

UK SS PEACE PROCESS ORANGE INCREMENT






MI6 & The Lying Game: Rosa Monckton and the Oxbridge spooks... I/Ops news-alliance.com 

 In December 2003, Daily Mail journalist Sue Reid, with whom we have worked in the past investigating the alleged ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly, quoted a source, who insisted on remaining anonymous, saying that Diana went to a leading London hospital to undergo a pregnancy scan, days before she joined Dodi on holiday. The result is unknown and the test was conducted in the utmost secrecy. But then Diana’s self-confessed ‘best friend’ Rosa Monckton, claims that Diana menstruated only a week before the crash, while they were on holiday in Greece. 

It is clear that Monckton believes she cannot be challenged on this issue but former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson alleges that Rosa’s husband, Dominic Lawson, former editor of the Sunday Telegraph newspaper and Spectator magazine, provided journalistic cover for MI6 officers while he was editor of The Spectator. Rosa’s brother, the Honourable Anthony Leopold Colyer Monckton, a diplomat, was also an MI6 spy according to Tomlinson. It should be noted that Dominic Lawson has never sued any publication or person for alleging he was an MI6 stringer. Dominic Lawson, is of course, the son of former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson and brother of famous TV ‘kitchen goddess’ Nigella Lawson. The very same Nigel Lawson who detested Mohamed Al Fayed for besmirching his beloved Tories. Tomlinson alleges that Dominic Lawson provided cover for an agent named ironically ‘Spencer’, who was put on the case of a young Russian diplomat, Pluton Obukhov, in Tallin, capital city of Estonia. 

In an excerpt from Tomlinson’s ‘banned’ book (The Big Breach) published in Pravda, it was revealed that Spencer, returning from a visit to Information Operations (I/Ops), which plants stories or propaganda in the British press, remarked, “Flippin’ outrageous. They’ve got the editor of the Spectator magazine on the books. He’s called ‘smallbrow’. He’s agreed to le me go to Tallin undercover as a freelancer for his magazine. The only condition is that I have to write an article which he’ll publish if he likes it’, the cheeky bastard wants a story courtesy of the taxpayer.” 

 The allegations that Dominic Lawson was a paid asset of MI6 have also been made in parliament but he has always denied ever having been an agent. How likely is it that he would admit it? Again, we reiterate that Lawson has brought no libel action against any publication alleging he was an MI6 asset, or a ‘stringer’ planted on newspapers by the spooks to further their covert propagandist agenda. 

 Other disturbing aspects of the unlikely ‘friendship’ between Diana and Rosa were raised by Paris-based journalist Jane Tawbase in a EuroBusiness investigation into Monckton and Lawson. She wrote: ‘Rosa Monckton, a generation older, made an odd friend for the often unhappy princess. A svelte sophisticate and a wealthy working woman, her first relationships and loyalties lay, almost from when she was born, with the Queen. She was a regular visitor to the royal household all her life and was, for that reason, more given to loyalty to the crown than to an unhappy and disruptive outsider, one who was seriously damaging the public image of the royal family.’ 

 On closer inspection, the relationship between Monckton and the ‘disruptive’ Diana, is somewhat inexplicable, perhaps just very odd. Diana was a fashion goddess and fitness fanatic who delighted in shopping and modern music. Monckton, by contrast, is a highly cerebral woman of the world, married to a man with links to MI6 that no journalist or newspaper editor should ever have. Jane Tawbase also raises two further questions on this murky subject and throws more light on the matter than most before or after her. She wrote: ‘Whether Rosa Monckton introduced her brother to the princess and whether he was part of the MI6 operation. It was almost unthinkable that he was not.’ In her second point she wrote: ‘Did MI6 ask Rosa Monckton to do the key job of moving into the princess’s inner circle and become her confidante? It would certainly have made the job easier.’ 

 Dissident MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, who has been harassed for years by the French and British authorities, is certain that Monckton’s brother is a spy. It should be noted that Anthony and Rosa’s grandfather worked for Edward VIII and kept a close watch on him for the security services throughout the abdication and beyond. Like Diana, the British Establishment were determined to rid themselves of Edward VIII. The Queen Mother, however, said that Diana was a greater threat to the House of Windsor than Wallis-Simpson and Edward VIII put together. Tawbase concludes that, ‘It would indeed be ironic if history had repeated itself and Rosa Monckton performed the same role for MI6 with regard to Princess Diana.’ 

 In these circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that Rosa Monckton declared that Diana was not pregnant. It must also be noted that no one else can give witness to Monckton’s suggestion that Diana menstruated while they holidayed in Greece, nor should her statement be regarded as fact, it is opinion. Monckton simply expects everyone to believe her version of events because she was Diana’s ‘friend’. And again, it must be stated that Diana abhorred everything to do with the State and was convinced that hired assassins were trying to kill her. It is puzzling why Diana formed a friendship with Monckton. We must turn to the testimony of Richard Tomlinson, who has been deliberately ignored by the French authorities. His affidavit to judge Herve Stephan was dismissed. Stephan showed no interest in Tomlinson’s affidavit but the British certainly did and MI6 led a campaign of arrests and harassment against its dissident officer across the world to disrupt his life and attempt to silence him…. Tomlinson also revealed that during his time with MI6, he discovered that there was an informal but direct link between certain MI6 officers of senior rank and royal courtiers. St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace are easy access points for the spooks through the back-channel process. Many of these ‘men’ share an Oxbridge background with royal courtiers and the relationship continues for life. They would all have known of the CIA eavesdropping operation against Diana and certainly shared the intel ‘product’. 

 In the Paget Report, Sir John Stevens alleges that MI6 and MI5 were not aware of the CIA operation. Indeed, he salaciously goes as far to say that the CIA were only interested in Diana’s ‘contacts’ and prime among which were Mohamed Al Fayed and his murdered son Dodi Fayed. By definition, if the CIA were watching Diana’s contacts, then Diana was also being watched. Obviously, Sir John Stevens, the faithful Establishment plod, knows this but at the same time, he must presume the general public to be completely stupid. His tale is defeated with elementary logic. British Intelligence certainly would have been told of the surveillance operation on Diana and her contacts and highly likely also, they would have been given access to the product of the eavesdropping. It is also perfectly clear to anyone with experience of modern surveillance that Diana would have been tracked through the signal from her mobile phone. Such signals allow the target to be pinpointed to within a metre of their location. The same is also true of Dodi Fayed, Wingfield, Rees-Jones and Henri Paul etc. As a ‘reward’ for his indiscretions, Tomlinson was arrested at gunpoint by the French DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire) at his home. He suffered a broken rib in the operation against him despite the fact that he has no record of violence. 


The DST agents were ordered to go in hard to teach him a lesson. The whole arrest was designed to shake him to the core and think better of opening his mouth in future. And this is an interesting point which requires further analysis. By their very nature, ‘fantasists’ or people who make things up, are ignored, not arrested at gunpoint and violently assaulted. Again, if Tomlinson was at least mistaken, or indeed lying about the matters he revealed, there would have been no need to arrest him and he could simply have been dismissed as a former employee with a furtive imagination. The fact he was arrested in such brutal fashion, proves conclusively that Tomlinson has revealed too many truths that powerful people would prefer to remain buried. It is also noteworthy that Tomlinson has not been accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by his detractors. In the event, Tomlinson was questioned for over eighteen hours at the Paris HQ of the DST to discourage him from giving evidence to the Stephan inquiry. But he did appear before Stephan and told him, “As long as they [MI6] can get away with doing something then that’s their only limit about what they will do. This includes assassination.” Diana’s decision to embrace Islam and highly likely produce a mixed-race brother or sister to the heirs to the throne of England, and her anti-landmines campaign were enough to warrant her elimination. But there is more still in the shape of the ‘secrets’ she held in her little box of treasures at Kensington Palace. Paul Burrell, often referred to as ‘Diana’s rock’ was aware of the box and most, if not all of its contents. 

Following his arrest on the grounds that he unlawfully took over 300 items from Kensington Palace, after the princess’s funeral, he was interrogated again and again by Scotland Yard detectives, who shook him up quite badly but failed to break him. In his book A Royal Duty, he relates his experience of the arrest and what the political police were looking for: ‘Then DS Milburn asked me two bizarre questions: “Do you have a manuscript of the memoirs you are writing?” If there was one moment when I knew the officers were stabbing in the dark, that was it. No such manuscript existed.’ Burrell then explains the events of the following morning: ‘The next morning, DS Roger Milburn returned. On instructions from Andrew Shaw, I said nothing to his volley of questions. Again, his curiosity seemed to focus more on the contents of a box, sensitive paperwork and a manuscript.’ Burrell’s trial was a landmine for the monarchy and the Queen could not risk her former butler, revealing some of what he saw. In open court, just before the trial collapsed, a truly revealing encounter took place that gave the world some insight of what was in Diana’s box of treasures. 

 Burrell wrote: ‘The full picture emerged with the judge’s approval. Scotland Yard was looking for a signet ring given to the princess by Major James Hewitt; a resignation letter from her private secretary Patrick Jephson; letters from Prince Philip to the princess; and a tape, which became known after the trial as the Rape Tape. It was a recording made by the princess in 1996 when she informally interviewed former KP orderly and ex-Welsh Guardsman George Smith. He had alleged that after a night of heavy drinking he had been raped in 1989 by a male member of staff who worked for Prince Charles. 

It all came to a head because George who had worked at Highgrove, St James’s Palace and KP, had been suffering nightmares, was drinking heavily, and his marriage was falling apart. He blamed it all on an incident that he said he was bottling up.’ ‘The princess knew the member of staff in question. From that moment on she loathed him. “I know what that evil bugger did. I know what he did to George, and I will never forgive him for that,” she seethed, after her futile attempts to bring about justice. He [George Smith] never returned to work, and accepted a settlement [Fiona Shackleton] at the end of his employment of around £40,000.’ ‘The princess ensured that the tape never saw the light of day. But the mystery of its whereabouts, and the threat its contents posed, emerged during the police investigation of my case. Lady Sarah McCorquodale had asked that Scotland Yard ‘ascertain’ the contents of the box. 

In court, DS Milburn said: “I was looking for the contents of that box. All of a sudden, the undertones behind the raid on my home became clear.’ As the trial wore on it was obvious Burrell would have to take the stand. The prospect of ‘Diana’s rock’ hurling highly explosive stones at the British Establishment was enough to prompt the Queen to recall a conversation she had with Burrell in December 1997 at Buckingham Palace in which Burrell told her that he was taking a number of the princess’s items into safekeeping. 


 The exchange was a chilling encounter for Burrell. He wrote of it: ‘As the meeting neared its end, the Queen said one more thing to me. Looking over her half-rimmed spectacles, she said: “Be careful, Paul. No one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are ‘powers’ at work in this country about which we have no knowledge,’ and she fixed me with a stare where her eyes made clear the ‘do you understand?’. ‘She [Queen] might have been referring to the domestic intelligence service MI5 because, have no doubt, the Queen does not know of its secret work and ‘darker practices’ but she is aware of the power it is capable of wielding. Like the royal household, the intelligence services are given carte blanche to act in whatever way is considered to be in the best interests of state and monarchy.’ 



 ‘At my December 1997 meeting with the Queen and as my statement had made clear: ‘I feared at the time of the princess’s death that there was a conspiracy to change the course of history, and erase certain parts of her life from it. Mrs Frances Shand Kydd spent two weeks shredding personal correspondence and documents.’ Piers Morgan in his own memoir, The Insider, explains that he tried to help Burrell and have the quasi-case against him dropped, he wrote: - 17 January 2001 – I rang Mark Bolland at the Palace. ‘You guys are mad, Mark. Burrell could say anything in the stand.’ ‘I know, I know,’ he replied despondently. ‘It’s a mess.’ ‘Well, end it now, before it’s too late.’ ‘We can’t, the police are running the case now.’ A cornered Burrell could be a very dangerous beast. This will go on for weeks, and can only be damaging to the Royal Family. They must be mad allowing Burrell to potentially take the stand. Cornered and desperate, he might say anything, and he knows the lot because he was there. There’s also no way he stole Diana’s stuff, anyone who knows him knows that. He could make more money from what’s in his mind than he ever could from a few of her trinkets. 

 The Establishment were again courting disaster by trying to silence Burrell. In reality, the tactic worked in reverse, virtually ensuring that Burrell, facing five years in prison if convicted, would open up before the glaring eyes of the world to save his own skin. By 16 September 1997, bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones had opened his eyes. The worry for the British Establishment was the strong possibility that he would remember what happened in the moments before the Mercedes crashed. Rees-Jones can certainly remember fastening his seatbelt just seconds before the car crashed but claims that he cannot remember anything after that. But again, damning further clarification comes in the shape of Piers Morgan and his memoir The Insider. Morgan wrote: ‘Tuesday, 16 September 1997 – I had a brief chat with Fayed today and he said that Rees-Jones is awake, and having flashbacks of the crash. ‘Can we have the first interview?’ Fayed was anxious. ‘He needs to tell us what happened first, that is the most important thing. Then perhaps he can talk to you. But we must be careful Piers, he is in a very bad way.’ 

To this day, Al Fayed has not told the world what Rees-Jones said to him! Naturally, Rees-Jones, who suffered terrible injuries, claims that he can remember nothing. Can he remember coming round in the hospital in the presence of Al Fayed and having ‘flashbacks of the crash’? We do not wish to be offensive to Rees-Jones, particularly given the injuries he suffered, but we do not think his story holds up in the slightest under examination. He can remember some things but not others, selective memory loss not amnesia. For instance, Rees-Jones can remember leaving the Ritz Hotel on the rue Cambon and that a white Fiat Uno was tailing them. He then recounts that he saw a white Fiat Uno again on the approach to the Alma Tunnel. He also recalls that he fastened his seatbelt and encouraged the others to do the same moments before impact. At the very moment he fastened his seatbelt, the white Fiat Uno was careering into the path of the Mercedes but Rees-Jones does not remember that.... His memory falls apart when it comes to events in the Alma Tunnel. He can remember belting up, not verbally at that time, but cannot remember seeing the white Fiat Uno in the tunnel nor a blinding white flash. If he can remember fastening his seatbelt, he can remember what happened in the very next seconds involving the white Fiat Uno and the blinding flash of light and the escaping motorbike. It is little wonder that the majority of people do not believe Rees-Jones. We will go further and state that he is lying about not being able to remember the juicy bits, the crucial events immediately before the Mercedes crashed. Either that, or he has made it all up about seeing a white Fiat Uno and fastening his seatbelt and encouraging the others to do the same. But then, why would he do that? This man wants his cake and to eat it but the majority of people do not swallow his 'sweetened' version of events. Rumours are rife in the media world that Rees-Jones has been threatened by British intelligence. If he opens his mouth and suddenly remembers what happened in the crucial seconds to impact, he might not be so lucky a second time. Rees-Jones is also still subject to the Official Secrets Act and government lawyers can make that mean whatever they want it to mean. Theoretically, the OSA should apply only to the period one was in service but the strictures of the Act apply for the rest of one’s life and Rees-Jones knows this only too well. There is also the fact that in Northern Ireland, Rees-Jones, a former paratrooper with experience of putting enemy targets under surveillance, worked closely at times with British Army Intelligence and he will know only too well what the Force Research Unit, MI6 and The Increment are capable of. 

On his testimony that he cannot remember the vital seconds before I impact, Rees-Jones should not be believed. The claim is that he suffers from amnesia, only in part mind you, and that we should have sympathy for him. We genuinely sympathise with the fact that he suffered terrible injuries in the crash but one must remain logical and rational and not succumb to emotional impulses. In his book, The Bodyguard’s Story, he repeats the same old tale, over and over again: he cannot remember the ‘juicy bits’ but has no problem dishing out all the old crumbs of information he wants us to know. And we know people in the media world, who are certain that Rees-Jones has been silenced by British Intelligence. 

 An important note to end this article on comes in the form of a quote from former MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson: “There is an arrogant faction in MI6, part of the Oxbridge clique, which doesn’t try to hide dedication to the royal family and their self-appointment as defenders of the realm.” And spooks excel at the lying game, as par for the course of their ‘training’ and ethics by prerequisite, are irrelevant.… http://www.news-alliance.com/mi6__the_lying_game.html



ARTICLE: The Unlawful Killing of Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed

A call to arms to all anti-NWO activist: Resist royal cyber-bullying with all available means
TheRebel.org
Published 08th March 2013
Three days ago, the Rebel Site got taken offline by its hosting firm under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The offense: I had republished the 2011 British documentary “Unlawful Killing” produced by Allied Star, a London-based film company owned by Egyptian billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Al-Fayed. The documentary implicates – amongst other things – the British royal family in the murder of the couple and its cover-up.
Youtube and Vimeo had already deleted the video a few weeks earlier, forcing me to host it directly on the Rebel Site. Two emails sent to me shortly after by the lawyers of my hosting firm unfortunately got intercepted by the spam filter. In those emails they advised me that they had received a complaint by a London based law firm, claiming the hosting of the video was in breach of their client’s copyrights. Since I didn’t receive the emails I obviously couldn’t comply with their request, forcing my hosting company of 7.5 years to disable the site.
Grudgingly, I deleted the video as demanded to get the site back online as soon as possible. However, I sent a letter back to the lawyers, with a 10 days deadline to provide written evidence that the plaintiff’s law firm was acting on behalf of the copyright owner, Allied Star. I also sent an email to Mohamed Al-Fayed, asking for permission to publish the film. The reply of his office was swift. It confirmed that they had requested the London law firm to make me take down the video. The only reason they gave was that the film had been taken off the market.
It becomes clear, when watching the documentary, that Dodi’s father deeply loved his son and was shattered by his death. Why would he spend millions to produce and promote a documentary on the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and shortly later take it off the market without giving much reason? The only explanation that makes sense is that he has been put under enormous pressure to do so. Not only has he been bullied to take his film off the market, but the blackmailers made it his problem to prevent others from republishing it.
Personally, I don’t respond well to bullying. I hate bullies and fight them with all available means. Thankfully I’m not alone. In this case of cyber-bullying, resistance is not only civil duty, but easy. Be warned though! It would be illegal to locate a copy of the “Unlawful Killing” documentary via any BitTorrent site and distribute it to as many people as possible. It would be illegal to burn CDs and pass them to all your friends. It would be illegal to upload the video to video hosting sites under its own or slightly altered name. And it would be illegal to create a torrent of your own on BitTorrent sites and share it for other people to download. But it is not illegal, to publish this article, share, email and republish it on your blog, and that’s exactly what I’m asking all of my readers to do. Make it go viral.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - March 8, 2013 at 7:43 pm

Diana Assassination 15 Years on – The Jack Blood Show – Wednesday 12th September 2012

DianaAssassination.com
September 12th 2012 Live Broadcast: Jack Blood (still stricken by the CC Flu) reports on the recent Mid east chaos aka, selection Psy Op.
Hour two: Joseph Skelton joins Jack to discuss his research on the Princess Diana Assassination (www.dianaassassination.com).
Listen to and/or download the show in full here.
Thanks to Jack for having us on his show.
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - September 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Categories: Multimedia   Tags:

FLASHBACK TO JULY 1997: Marriage of Charles poses risk to church

OUR COMMENTARY, 12th SEPT 2012: We are often tasked with the question of a motive as to why Diana was assassinated.  In our research it is self-evident that there was not just one reason, but many factors to at least consider.
To the New World Order, Diana was a threat not only to the Military Industrial Complex that they control (see her successful campaign against the use of landmines at the time of her death).  She was a threat in terms of undermining the Monarchy and beyond that, the establishment of the Church and State.
This is evidenced in the following article.  It is indicative if not chilling to note that this was published only a few weeks prior to Diana’s death.
As we and others have documented elsewhere, this constitutional mess (i.e. well publicised love triangle of Charles, Camilla and Diana) as it was seen at the time was something that the British Intelligence Services (secret societies known in the public arena as MI5/6) needed to discontinue. 
It is our contention that in June 1997, two months prior to Diana’s accident, an unsuccessful attempt was made on the life of Camilla within the borders of the UK.  See our collection of information on this here.  Following this failure, the contract was shifted over to target Diana by another arm of the same Intelligence Service network.  This time it was carried out successfully outside the borders of the UK, in Paris.
To the shock of the British people, their icon, their legend was now gone and the same people that killed her, span a story publicly of ‘motor accident’.  First blaming the paparazzi photographers, then landing the blame in the lap of the driver, Henri Paul.
To anyone with two brain cells to rub together this was no accident.  Here we look at one of the several motives that is essential to understanding why she was killed.  Due to Fair Use limitations we have not copied the full body article below, however the last two paragraphs are indeed worthy of note in this regard.

*************************************************
HEADLINE: Marriage of Charles poses risk to church
Article by Colin Brown
The Independent
Published 19th July 1997
********************
The Parliamentary aide to the Lord Chancellor yesterday said a constitutional crisis over the marriage of Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles would lead to the disestablishment of the Church.
The warning by Tony Wright, a Parliamentary private secretary to Lord Irvine, will be seen as part of the softening up exercise for the public to accept the eventual marriage between the Prince and his mistress, in spite of the denials by Downing Street and the Palace that it is contemplated.
The controversy over the marriage is likely to strengthen the opinion among some MPs that the Government’s constitutional reforms should include cutting the links between the Church and the state.

THE ARTICLE CONTINUES…

Last night’s party at Highgrove, thrown by the Prince to celebrate Mrs Parker Bowles’ 50th birthday, was part of the charm offensive to overcome public hostility stemming from his divorce from Princess Diana.
The Prince has been seeking advice from confidants on how best to introduce her to a wider public.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - September 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Categories: Motives   Tags:

FLASHBACK: Prince Philip pictured at Nazi funeral

Article by Andrew Levy
Daily Mail
Published 06th March 2006
*************************
Prince Philip has broken a 60-year public silence about his family’s links with the Nazis.
In a frank interview, he said they found Hitler’s attempts to restore Germany’s power and prestige ‘attractive’ and admitted they had ‘inhibitions about the Jews’.
The revelations come in a book about German royalty kowtowing to the Nazis, which features photographs never published in the UK.
They include one of Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - June 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Categories: Prince Philip Exposed   Tags:

FLASHBACK: Di Told Me She Was in Danger

The Mirror
Published 2003-2004 (Exact date unknown)
************************************
DIANA confided in a royal biographer that she feared for her life just two months before her death.
Ingrid Seward was told by Diana that she felt her life had been in danger, in a heart-to-heart chat at Kensington Palace.
Ms Seward said: “We were having what she called a girlie chat and she just opened up. She told me exactly what she said in her letter to Burrell.
“She told me: ‘I know this sounds silly now, but I did really worry about the brakes on my car’.
“Diana said this to me at the end of June 1997. She was convinced there were people out to get her. We laughed about it. She didn’t tell me who they were. She was quite canny.
“She obviously took it quite seriously and said that she had the apartment swept for bugs.
“I spent the morning with her. Everything she told me was amazing. I was under trust not to repeat what she said.
“I couldn’t believe what she was saying. It was pretty extraordinary.”
Ms Seward, who wrote what Diana told her in an article 12 months ago, added: “Diana avoided saying who these people were who were after her.
“She was trying to emphasise the mistrust she felt for everybody and feeling completely isolated. It must have been pretty scary.
“I knew she was also fearful they would take the boys away from her, and was genuinely worried that would happen.
ORIGINAL LINK NO LONGER AVAILABLE
SEE FULL ARTICLE HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - June 17, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Categories: Just a Coincidence   Tags:

FLASHBACK: Diana’s Fears: Philip Hates Me – He Wants Me To Disappear

Diana feared an attack on her life
Article by Padraic Flanagan
The Express
Published 09th June 2007
******************************
PRINCESS Diana was haunted by fears she would be murdered, and told friends of her concerns about Prince Philip’s animosity to her.
“He really hates me and would like to see me disappear,” she said.
The Princess, who died in a Paris car crash in 1997, repeatedly made clear her belief that she would be the victim of an Establishment conspiracy.
Her fashion designer friend Roberto Devorik explained that the Princess had spoken about how she would be killed in a fake accident.
“They will do it when I am in a small plane, in a car when I am driving, or in a helicopter,” she is said to have told Mr Devorik. He also revealed how Diana disliked having bodyguards because she felt they spied on her.
The article, in next month’s edition of US magazine Vanity Fair, reports how Diana voiced her suspicions on a trip to Rome with Argentinian Mr Devorik.
SEE FULL ARTICLE HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - June 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Categories: Just a Coincidence   Tags:

FLASHBACK: Diana death probe: two computers stolen

IOL News
Published 07th February 2006
****************************
Two laptops have been stolen from offices used by a former police chief who is heading a probe into the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997, a newspaper said on Tuesday.
The theft sparked fears that the equipment may contain material from Operation Paget, the investigation headed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord John Stevens, the Daily Express said.
However, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan said the computers did not contain any sensitive information or any material linked to the probe.
SEE FULL ARTICLE HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - June 17, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Categories: Just a Coincidence   Tags:

FLASHBACK: Diana was warned about ‘accident’

Yahoo News Online
Published 06th December 2005
*************************
Diana, Princess Of Wales was warned “accidents can happen” by a senior politician just six months before she died, according to her therapist.
Simone Simmons has told British police investigating Diana’s death in a 1997 Paris car crash that the princess asked her to listen to a recorded phone conversation with the politician threatening her over her campaign to ban landmines.
She was told, “Don’t meddle with things you don’t know about. Accidents can happen.”
Simmons has passed the name of the politician to police.
The allegations fuel claims Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed were murdered.
ORIGINAL LINK HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - June 17, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Categories: Just a Coincidence   Tags:

FLASHBACK: Key Diana Evidence Will Stay Secret For 100 Years

Contact Music
Published 19th October 2005
***************************
Vital evidence relating to the tragic death of late British royal DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES will remain secret for 100 years under French law.
London’s Metropolitan Police are conducting a new investigation into Diana’s death following a high speed car crash in Paris in 1997, but their attempts to learn the identities of 24 bodies who shared a mortuary with her dead chauffeur HENRI PAUL have been rejected.
According to British newspaper the Daily Express, investigating officers believe blood may have been taken from one of the other corpses in a bid by secret agents to frame Paul for drink driving.
MOHAMED AL FAYED, the father of Diana’s lover DODI who also died following the crash, is certain the French authorities refusal to divulge information about the 24 dead people is further evidence of a cover-up operation.
His spokesperson says, “We have struggled for years to establish the identity and cause of their deaths. This just reaffirms our belief that there is an orchestrated cover-up.
“Until anybody can prove otherwise, we believe that Diana was murdered.”
SEE FULL ARTICLE HERE
Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by Curator - June 17, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Categories: Just a Coincidence   Tags:

FLASHBACK: Diana Embalming To Hide Pregnancy

OUR COMMENTARY: It matters not, the outcome of any tests as to whether she was pregnant. The more sensible argument/question is that she was assassinated at that time, because IT WAS BELIEVED that she was pregnant with Dodi’s child.
This is confirmed by several in the media and Royal circles to have been the case.
So it is contributing to a well known ‘straw-man’ argument to say: “…because some test says that she wasn’t pregnant, this proves that she wasn’t murdered for that reason”.
We need to be aware of this element.
**************************************************************
Contact Music
Published 26th September 2005
******************************
Late British royal DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES was embalmed on the orders of British authorities to prevent tests which could have confirmed whether or not she was carrying her lover DODI FAYED’s child, according to a new investigation.
British newspaper the Daily Express today (26SEP05) claims a top official at the British embassy in Paris was informed just minutes after the Princess’s death that embalming her body would be illegal. But the procedure went ahead.
Professor PETER VANEZIZ, an independent pathologist says, “Nobody should be embalmed before a post-mortem. There is no reason why this should have been done in the case of the Princess.
“There was no reason for it to be done in order to repatriate her body to this country. That is evidenced by the fact Dodi Fayed’s body was not embalmed.
“One would have normally thought that the effect of embalming would destroy body samples if the person was pregnant.”
A spokeswoman for the UK foreign office says, “This is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by Lord Stevens and as such we have no further comment.
Fayed’s father MOHAMED AL FAYED has always insisted the tragic pair were murdered and claims he was knew Diana was pregnant.
He says, “I was told Diana was pregnant. Dodi told me the baby would have been my grandchild.”
SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
Post a Comment