- Exposing the truth THEY don't want you to know

Please note that I downloaded this before it got removed, so the links referenced no longer work. -PV

(development of my WWW site, 'Alternative 4' is now temporarily suspended. For the time being the central repository for information concerning the MI6 Assassination will be

14th September 1997



I quickly banged out the first version of this File mid-morning, the day Diana died. Although I am a total British republican, I liked and admired her and I shed more than a few tears when I learnt of her death. She shone against the shabby background that is the British Royal Family. She will be sadly missed by millions worldwide.

Yet, there was more to be tearful about. If it was just a tragic accident it will be easier to accept and this his how it is being presented by the World's News, with scapegoated cameramen thrown in. But at this point I don't accept it. This smells too fishy. Too many powerful figures in the British establishment will have their passage eased by her death. It stinks. For the moment - and I will retract if I feel I am wrong - I believe a shadowy plot was afoot to kill Diana. It may well be that she was killed by her Majesty's Secret Service - MI6.

I had no idea that the first quickly assembled post would become an instant internet classic. I have received many fawning emails from all sorts of people - not just paranoid conspiracy types, thanking me for getting this down while the news was still fresh, before Intelligence spin-doctors have time to do their worse.

Others have done the inevitable. They have accused me of being disrespectful, even 'sick'. Some have complained that the World should mourn before probing too far. But I fear that shadowy figures are moulding public opinion into false shapes as you read this. The freshest Media Reports must be monitored to see if they change and mutate over time. This often happens in cases of terrible revelation where the Elite has something to hide or lose (see footnote 12).

This 9th release is a fairly major update, although there is much material being prepared for a total re-write. The 'Aftermath' section has been significantly updated. Typos have been removed and points clarified.

David-Charles Hammonds - 14th September 1997



People have asked the inevitable. American conspiracy theorists have asked, as they always do, 'is there a conspiracy'? You bet your life there is. Let me fill in you in on how and why MI6 were able to terminate Diana. and why they needed to.

Diana has always been a worry to the British Royal family. She was selected by Buckingham Palace, to be little more than the 'surrogate mother' to Prince Charles' role as constitutional 'stud'. Although she undoubtedly cared for Charles, maybe even loved him, she knew at her marriage that Charles' affections to her were eclipsed by his affections for Camilla Parker-Bowles, a woman of a minor aristocratic family. Camillia is two years older than Charles. A woman of Camilla‘s age would have been in her late thirties at the time that Charles married Diana. A woman more of Charles‘ age would not have had bodily-clock with the same ample mileage left that Diana's did. A marriage was forced between Charles - a man selfishly pre-possessed with becoming King and providing heirs - and Diana, a young bedazzled girl caught in the web of one of the most devious women in Britain - The Queen Of England.

Charles was always far more unpopular with the British people than Diana and he resented this, resented this a lot. Charles was the important one, it was he who was to head the British State, and yet this shy, inarticulate girl was beguiling to to the British people and later the world. From the start of the marriage, Diana knew that she would have to 'make' Charles love her, she knew full-well that he didn't already. She knew he still loved Camillia. 'There were always three of us in our marriage', she said on BBC's Panorama. But throughout this unhappy time, she'd managed to do her job - she'd provided two healthy boys, she'd provided the all-important heirs.

Although the Queen's plan had been an immense success, she couldn't help but be horribly cruel towards Diana. The Princess of Wales was not given ladies in waiting - she was always a pseudo-Royal in the eyes of the Queen. This, understandably, took it's toll on Diana. She descended into bouts of bulimia, became psychologically scarred. Yet, even in her frailty she was being a pain in the arse to the Queen and her darling Charles. She was as popular as ever. While Charles played the grouse-shooting Aristocrat and was alienating the British people from the Monarchy, Diana was transcending such matters and was developing herself into a formidable force. More and more the world saw her as the House of Windsor's Cinderella, who was fighting her way to the ball. Yet, Charles, the envious little creature that he is, could not take pleasure in the asset of Diana. She outshone him and he hated it. He didn't love her, resented her, maybe privately despised her - he really wanted her out of his life. Throughout this time Charles was having a relationship with Camilla. Diana had tried to make him love or even like her. She had failed. She would have to start to live her own life. This she did.....

It was when she began to acknowledge that she had no real future with Charles she inevitably looked for other love-interests. This she found for a time with the swashbuckling Capt. James Hewitt. However, the Establishment, sensing that Diana had given her first two-fingers to the House of Windsor, she was in for trouble. Now not only a target of the Queen, she was now a target of Britain's domestic intelligence agency - MI5. Behind closed doors, the establishment of Aristocratic Elites and related Conservative politicians (up to the moment of her death, Conservative politicians were mounting a venomous assault of words, accusing her of being party-political, 'A loose cannon') decided to launch a campaign to discredit her in the eyes of Britain. The unaccountable, secretive and often down-right evil MI5 were called in to monitor Diana, tap-her phones, dig the dirt. This they did, and their greatest triumph came with the 'Squidgy' tapes (intimate calls between Diana and another male friend, 'Gilby', proving adultery) which were leaked into the press by M15. And yet, British opinion was not as conservative as the growing conspiracy had thought. People were not too bothered, they saw Diana as a victim, they excused the affair, they were more angry that someone had tapped the woman's phone. The establishment plot was failing. The British Monarchy was looking bad, the future King was looking bad, the whole British constitutional system was slowly being viewed with resentment by a larger portion of the population than ever before. Yet through all this Diana was shining, bringing a fairy-tale magic in fleeting moments to AIDs victims, the homeless, the war torn. If the British establishment was showing worrying subsidence cracks, the mythological fairy-tale Diana was certainly not.

Although often emotionally fragile, Diana had shifted from the plain but pretty, slightly gormless young girl into someone now bolstered by a powerful network of friends and colleagues. She was now beginning to play the Queen at her own game. She was getting her own back, fighting deviousness with deviousness. Through her band of advisors she was making Charles look more and more the bad guy. She was also the greatest influence over her two boys and the Queen and Charles found this infuriating. While Charles was seen taking the Princes out for Blood-sports, Diana was trying to give them as many 'ordinary' experiences as she possibly could. Charles encouraged the Princes to look on others as inferiors, while their mother encouraged them to look on others as equals.

Towards her divorce and after she was orchestrating the media to present her as the more favourable of the two. To a large extent, she was succeeding. While she had started out as a constitutional liability, Diana was now actively attacking the constitutional elite. She was threatening to destroy the horrible British constitutional system which had done her so much harm and treated her as merely a slab of meat, an incubator of heirs, a stooge of the House of Windsor.

But not only was Diana now seen to be attacking the Public State, she was now doing something far, far more dangerous - she was attacking the most evil sector of the Private State - the Arms industry. Diana was speaking out against land-mines and calling for a total worldwide ban on their manufacture and sale. This was at a time when the Private state was doing a pretty good job of smothering centrist and left-of-centre calls within the New Labour party for a ban. Here was Diana, stirring it all up, jet-setting around the world, mingling with more ethical world-leaders, getting very good support. She was even able to get Hillary to make Bill reconsider his position on the issue. World-wide Diana was quietly making many enemies. Her actions were particularly upsetting to the Arms Barons in Britain, where lower-tech weaponry such as landmines is a big industrial deal. And of course, Arms Exporters are monitored and aided by secret security services, occasionally in 'legitimate intelligence gathering', most often in the protection of Western puppet-dictatorships, which provide markets for killing machines and provide an excuse for Western Armed Forces to stay tooled-up. Diana had been the target of intelligence attacks before at the hands of Britain's bumbling MI5, now she was to be targeted on a much higher level - she was to cross the path of the world-wide secret government where intelligence agencies, big corporations, Royal Houses, powerful individuals, neo-Chivalraic Orders, and powerful secret societies merge into a blur. The British wing was to act on both worldwide and domestic concerns through the infamous MI6. With Diana's death, Charles and his mother would be set to gain complete control over the Princes, the increasing popularity of Diana over Charles could be curtailed, the British Arms Industry could lance an irritating boil.

Yet Diana was not alone in getting up the nose of the British system. Another individual was up to the same thing - Muhammad Al-Fayed. Al-Fayed is the controller of a huge business network and, like most self-made billionaires, had the attitude 'Well, I've made it! Up yours!'. The darling of Margaret Thatcher, Al-Fayed epitomised the right-libertarian philosophy - do what you you like and tread on as many toes as you like in the pursuit of wealth. This type of attitude leads to an ethical vacuum, nothing is a barrier to making money. Al-Fayed was soon slipping bungs to high-ranking Tory Party figures such as Neil Hamiliton and Jonathon Aitkin and countless others proven and unproven. This Egyptian fellow was happily undermining democracy in Britain. When news of the bribes broke, Al-Fayed was only to happy to own up and was willing to expose many others as bribe-takers. These 'sleaze' incidents were further nails in the coffin of the Establishment's political place-men, The Conservative Party, who were to lose heavily at the next election (although, the establishment, devious as ever, had infiltrated Bilgerburger Tony Blair's new right-wing Labour party as a contingency measure). This was an Egyptian citizen who had power to destroy a British Government. The once ally of the British establishment was now it's victorious enemy.

Al-Fayed, in his former days as establishment darling, had struck up an association with Diana. This was very much renewed after Labour won the election and Diana and her Sons took a holiday with Al-fayed on his substantial yacht. This was really rubbing the establishment's nose in it! It was saying, 'I've undermined you, now I've taken your country's most prized woman. The heir to your throne sees me as an Uncle'. Al-Fayed encouraged his playboy son, Dodi, to strike up relations with the Princess and soon there was a much publicised romance.

It had now gone too far for the establishment. Diana had undermined the British constitutional system and was threatening a key industry, and, to top it all, this Johnny Foreigner had made them look like fools. Not only this, a possible Al-Fayed half-brother to the Heir would have been just too unsettling for the Establishment. Diana had to be terminated. If they could get Al-Fayed too, so much the better.

And so all MI6 needed to do was pick it's moment. Diana's Merc may well have been tampered with in some way to ensure she is killed (stunt teams alter the structure of cars all the time). The Merc leaves the Ritz hotel at *high speed*, before any Papperazzi follow. It's just after midnight - a fair few people about on a Paris night, but too many as it's quite late. The paperazzi are fairly *amiable*, not an evil horde as they're being portrayed on the news at the moment (this is almost certainly now a cover-story). Diana smiles at the cameras, she's sparkling. Diana and Dodi sit in the back of the car. Dodi's 'Security Man' drives. A front seat passenger who may be British intelligence also rides, possibly in some sort of shielding to protect him from the forthcoming impact. The car speeds away along on it's way to a private house. The papperazzi follow on hair-dryer motorcycles but do to adversely interfere with the car. The Merc enters tunnel with little or no traffic. There are few possible witnesses about - the dark tunnel provides good cover. The Motorcycles follow behind, not causing too much trouble. Possibly, a 'British Agent' (either Bees-Jones or an external obstuctor) forces crash, car crumples, as it may have been set-up to. The concrete tunnel is an ideal place to smash up a car. Britain's Queen of Hearts is injured, later to die. Al-Fayed's son is dead on scene. Driver is dead. Paperazzi on bike are rounded up by French Police. Ambulance is somewhat late. Only a few witnesses. Information implicating paperazzi is disseminated by British intelligence through the BBC. Paperazzi are possible witnesses to some of the the actual events. Their film-roles are taken from them.

MI6, I believe, accomplish mission...

The Aftermath

In the first section I outlined why it is unlikely that this was just your random car crash. I gave a brief outline of the politics of Diana's interactions with the British and World Establishments. The next sections explain the course of of the conspiracy as new information - and more importantly, disinformation - become available to the world.

The 'Bodyguard'

A major anomaly was the BBC's treatment of the surviving passenger, initially described as 'British Special Branch', and called Trevor Rees-Jones. This information 'came from French Police' and was reported mid-morning on the Sunday. It is likely that French police found an identity badge of some sort on Trevor-Rees Jones' person, although this is speculation. A little later, the same day BBC announce that Scotland Yard deny that he works for them. Was he posing as Scotland Yard, but working for a much higher agency? The BBC later announce he's an Al-Fayed 'security man' or 'body-guard', and some report him as Diana's 'bodyguard'. Later announcements, (11.00 Sept. 1st) described Rees-Jones as a 29 year old ex-Soldier. We are given no description of his rank or regiment. Is he an ex-Officer? SAS? The television news does not tell us. Is he someone who might be recruited by MI6? My American contacts tell me that some earlier reports describe him as 'ex-Special-Branch' rather than an ex-soldier. An email respondent made me aware of a unit called 'Army Special Branch' which as well as accounting for some of the confusions, would also reinforce the idea Rees-Jones as a potential MI6 recruit. Remember, he's only 29 - are we to believe he's been a soldier of some sort, a member of Scotland Yard's Special Branch and a top Al-Fayed security man?

Several British Newspapers have given more of the background of Trevor Rees-Jones. If we are to believe these reports we can construct the following picture of the man. Rees-Jones served in the 1st

Battalion of the Parachute Regiment from 1987 until 1992. He had served in the Gulf and in Northern Ireland, reaching the Army rank of Lance-Corporal until his retirement in 1992. An email respondent suggested that I check this information in a volume called The Army List‘ available in large reference libraries. This I haven't had time to do, but at the moment I'll run with the information from the newspapers. Again, this tends to support the idea of Rees-Jones as someone who may have been chosen to infiltrate the Al-Fayed security team.

Early reports of Rees-Jones' condition conflict markedly to what is being said now. Early reports state that 'the front seat passenger' is 'in no danger'. One of his family was shown on BBC in a calm, relieved state. Later reports state he is 'critical' and in 'intensive care'. At this point, it seems as if he may not, officially, be in a fit state to talk. Again, we might not necessarily be being given the true state of play regarding the man's condition. My guess is he's maybe talking already and British intelligence are deciding how to handle what he's saying. Maybe he's more cut-up than expected? Maybe he'll want to blow the whistle, blow the whole evil operation. Maybe he is genuinely not a 'British Agent', maybe he's just a victim who knows a truth more terrible than the 'truth' the Big Media is feeding us. I have by no means ruled out that Trevor Rees Jones is a British Agent who has earlier infiltrated the Al-Fayed security set-up ready for when 'the time comes'.

A curious nugget of information surfaced in the Britain's centrist Observer newspaper on the 7th September 1997. We had been led to believe that Rees-Jones was in an absolutely desperate condition He had suffered severe facial injuries, had been Brain damaged and his tongue had been severed. In fact, it would seem that anything that might have prevented him from speaking has indeed happened to him. According to the Observer, 'a source close to the family' had revealed that Rees-Jones said he was feeling 'guilty about the tragedy, but he says he could not have prevented the tragedy'. According to this 'close family source' Rees-Jones gave these utterances in a period of consciousness. This alleged utterance was given to his mother and stepfather just a day after the crash. Furthermore, Rees-Jones said he felt close to the Princess and Dodi and was devastated by their deaths. If true, and I believe this is information which has 'slipped through the net' it would seem that Rees-Jones is not half as badly injured as the world has been being conditioned to think. Obviously, we have to ask if Rees-Jones could speak all this to his family, why are the French Magistrates who are supposedly leading the operation almost seeming to want Rees-Jones to lie silent for as long as possible. It's as if they don't want his testimony, as if they don't want to hear any contradictory revelation until they've massaged and moulded their own version of the truth. On 12th September 1997, the popular Mirror newspaper was spewing out this false propaganda with a front page article claiming that Rees-Jones 'hasn't been told of the deaths'. This is obviously complete nonsense.

Look out for a freak relapse.

Also of interest in the Observer article was the the description of Trevor Rees-Jones as 'secretive'. According to the Observer, Rees-Jones joined the Al-Fayed security set-up after leaving the Parachute Regiment and, interestingly, 'the elite Royal Protection Squad'. His grandmother, Mrs. Sarah Ann Rees was quoted in the article as saying, 'We didn't know anything about his jobs, although I've had a lot to do with him as we are a close family. We knew he was a bodyguard, but we didn't know who he worked for. It was no good asking him about anything he didn't want to tell you. On Monday Trevor's stepfather rang me and told me Trevor was going to live and make it back as he was - as Trevor.'. This rather confirms many of my initial feelings. Of course, secret service are encouraged to maintain secrecy surrounding their employment.

Leaving the Ritz Hotel

A man from Britain's Daily Express paper described, early on the Sunday, that the press outside the Ritz Hotel was calm. Diana smiles at camera calmly gets into car. The car speeds off before Papperazzi apparently follow on motorcycles. This revelation has only been heard once on the BBC. The Big Media story is that Diana and Dodi were to exit at the front door, saw the mob of papperazzi and sneaked out the 'back way' into the Mercedes-Benz. Apparently, we are to believe that Henri Paul was beckoned by someone to 'be the Driver'. Although Paul is also one of Al-Fayed's security team we are being led to believe he's little more than some sort of drugged-up, drunken, unqualified Ritz 'bell-boy'.

Of course, the shock revelation came that he was Three-times over the French Drink-drive limit, two times the British limit. This has opened up a can of worms. People who knew Paul, are now coming forward to say he wasn't the sort of drink much, and that that he often refused to drive if he had had even a small amount to drink. His family and the Fayed's demanded a second blood test, which unsurprisingly confirmed the earlier tests and also revealed that Henri Paul was also using Prozac. One French Doctor quoted in the Independent on Sunday 7th September 1997 suggested that the picture being given of Paul is that of a man on the edge, hardly someone able to keep down an important job at one of the Worlds Top Hotels.

Why did the car speed away from the Ritz when the Papperazzi were being fairly restrained? Were the Papperazzi such a big deal? What scraps of treasure would fall through the Merc's blacked-out windows? Why the need for high speed? Wouldn't the Papperazzi have dispersed when it became clear that there was no pictures on offer? It's now becoming clear that a drunken Paul who taunts the papperazzi and then drives off at 100mph with such important people in his care is completely untenable. What did Trevor Rees-Jones think about this 'drunk' getting in to drive? Was he plastered too? There are gaping holes in the whole episode, it's too unlikely. Something is badly wrong.

It may well be - in fact it is highly likely - that Henri Paul‘s blood-sample has been tampered with so as to give the impression that he was drunk and drugged-up on anti-depressants. If MI6 could discredit Paul, and lay much of the blame for the accident at the door of Muhammad Al-Fayed, then this may smother Al-Fayed‘s own investigations. The last thing MI6 want is for another investigation to undermine their own carefully constructed truth‘. If the Al-Fayeds, with all their private resources, are to launch a major private inquiry into what happened this could well present a problem for the establishment plot? Would Al-Fayed punish them one more time? Well, there's already a big Media campaign to implicate the Ritz and Al-Fayed, as well as a campaign to undermine his key spokesman, Michael Cole.

The Papperazzi

Although the papperazzi is being blamed world-wide, it was nearly two days after the event that the papperazzi were charged with anything. At the time I wondered, 'Are they looking for their Lee Harvey Oswald?'. Now this has been blown out of the water - it's gone totally surreal. They've charged the whole seven of them with Manslaughter! One of the seven isn't even a papperazzi - he's just a motorcycle courier on his way home. Another of of the seven told the BBC that he feels as if he's 'fallen into a net'. Of course, those accused of a crime, say all kinds of things, whether guilty or innocent. But it's a curious thing for him to have said, 'fallen into a net'. What have the 'French Police' done to these wretches?

Well, perhaps someone in the French Police force is feeling very guilty about what's been going on behind those closed doors. On Tuesday night Sept. 2nd a Police report was leaked accusing the seven of the most appalling things - obstructing the emergency services for one. Is the Policeman responsible for this leak guilty that his colleagues are taking part in a set-up, and so wants to undermine the trial by leaking documents? A French Policeman claims that these papperazzi pushed him out of the way as he tried to assist the victims. Yet, this conflicts greatly with the testimony of the French Doctor who was on the scene within minutes of the crash. He said that although there were men with cameras there, they caused no obstruction to him in his work. Is the Policeman a manufactured witness‘?

It now also transpires that these papperazzis were riding what can be classed as little more than hair-dryers‘, rather than higher-speed sports bikes. They wouldn‘t touch a Mercedes-Banz tearing away at 100mph+.

It seems as if the whole case against the paperazzi is a nonsense. The manslaughter charges are a complete joke, whether Paul was drunk or not. The Magistrates' investigation is now centered on discrediting Henri Paul. This is an understandable position. After, all the dead can't be heard to complain.

The Witnesses

We have already mentioned the witnesses of the papperazzi, the French Doctor, and the French policeman.

Other key witnesses we are being told about are those who have claimed to see the crash or the events surrounding it‘s immediate aftermath. Bizzarrely, these are almost completely made up of American tourists! It would be easy, but sloppy, to suggest that the CIA had lent their British cousins a few spooks for the afternoon, but it does merit bearing in mind. This evil incident was a immaculately organised affair - anything is possible. One American family described the Papperazzi swarming over the car talking pictures‘, but did not see the papperazzi cause‘ the crash.

There is major conflicting testimony emerging from some witnesses. Many people saw the Mercedes car travelling at 90, 100, 120mph. Yet, police are interviewing someone who claims to have seen a Motorcycle 'zig-zagging' in front of the car. Zig-zagging at 90, 100mph on a hair-dryer‘ motorcycle? Come on! Well, it seems as if this early witness was again completely spurious, one Francois Levi who telephoned the Reuters News agency with this information. Although I initially wondered that Levi may have been a witness to the 'hit', it seems he's either an MI6, 'manufactured witness' created to confuse the Media, or else is some lone nut trying to 'help' by implicating the paperazzi.

Very early reports quoted witnesses as seeing/hearing an explosion, rather like a terrorist attack. Several w witnesses that were in the proximity of the tunnel just before the crash said they heard two distinct explosions, the first being louder than the second. An American email respondent, echoing many others, spoke of an American woman who was unable but to repeat the word 'explosion' almost as if searching for a different word, trying to say 'crashing' but aware of the dishonesty in saying so. In frustration, she again said 'explosions'. Many people saw this America Couple on CNN, and it was reported the day-after the crash on ITV's Teletext Service but this testimony was not heard again - ever. According to my Email respondent, it was reported in a local North Californian Newspaper that the couple's is home in San Diego and that it seems as if no one wants to talk to them about their sensational experience.

The 'CNN witnesses' also said that immediately after the event some people were around the car and that one man in a three piece suit screamed at them in French and that there was 'liquid on the ground'. Understandably, the witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Furthermore, it seems as if three men in Paris for one guys birthday were on the same road and saw the same men around the car and the same man in a three piece suit screaming in French.

A great many people have emailed me asking why I neglected to mention the Americans seen on CNN in very early reports who described someone leaving the tunnel telling them to 'get back' only moments after the actual crash. I haven't mentioned this until now because I was unable to verify it at the time, but I'm now convinced that many saw these witnesses on CNN, so I'm now running with it. Of course, if there was some in the tunnel just moments after the crash, clearing away witnesses, he's almost certainly part of the assassination, an MI6 agent.

It is interesting to note that a few days after the incident the French police were said to be looking for a smaller, darkly coloured seen car leaving the tunnel by several witnesses. It now seems they have completely abandoned this line of enquiry. Of course, it may well be that this car and the 'man shouting in French' are connected. It is likely that the French police are well aware now of the suspicious nature of this crash, and their superiors and French Intelligence are involved in high-level clandestine meetings with the British Government and/or MI6. I mean, what does the 'Officer in charge' do when confronted with the terrible truth? He must think to himself, 'Christ! The bloody roast-beef have bumped off their Princess. How the hell do I handle this one?'. It would seems as if there maybe a conflict between the rank-and-file Police officers and 'higher-forces'. It's obvious that certain sections of the police are trying to get to something near the truth. On 13th September 1997 there is to be a 'reconstruction' of events for example, although sadly this may to be window-dressing, another attempt to present a false truth. Who can say? If it is indeed true that this was an MI6 termination than the British Government would sooner cover it up than have to admit that they have no control over British intelligence, even if they are privately appalled. And imagine those millions of mourners in Great Britain - they'd be a minor revolution if the truth became widely known.

Diana Injury Anomaly

It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was injured, but that her life wasn‘t threatened. The French Doctor treated her for some time at the scene before an Ambulance took her to the French Hospital. The crash occurred at just past midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4am. I‘m not sure what to make of this.

There is now question as to what hospital Diana would be taken to. Someone has said she would have been quicker treated taken to an American hospital. I have not been able to verify this at this point.

Many respondents, world-wide, have told me that early interviews with the French doctor - Frederic Mailliez - on the scene say he saw the Princess 'thrashing about', 'groaning and moaning' and that her condition 'did not seem desperate', while other reports describe her motionless with her head on her shoulder. Thrashing about? If she was this could have been for all sorts of reasons, but did the agent who caused the crash, inject her with something - just to make sure? Was it the 'man shouting in French' the man who cleared the 'CNN couple' from the area? Also, Al-Fayed claims that in hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person in England following the crash, so obviously she was fairly conscious for a time. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it implicate someone perhaps?

Incredibly, there is no mention whatever of a Diana post-mortem. And of course, the body was taken straight back to the UK and is now firmly buried in the ground.

The Establishment React

For me - although some would cry too subjective‘ - the reaction of British Political leaders is telling. Bilderberger Blair of New Labour and Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal Democrats both looked and sounded genuinely upset, Blair's voice cracking with emotion. William Hague, the Conservative Leader, seemed unmoved, unaffected, disinterested, trying to sound concerned but failing. Did Hague suspect what was going to happen to Diana? Are the Conservative old guard privately relieved that the 'loose cannon' has been finally silenced? Has Mr. Soames shown his face in public?

The Queen's reaction is telling, seeming to lend support my initial claims. The Queen seems to have adopted the most insidious of 'life goes on' attitudes. The Union Jack over Buckingham Palace was not lowered to half mast, unlike most other British institutional buildings. The boys were taken, as per, to Church by the Queen as if nothing had happened, exposing the grieving Princes to minor public attention. It was reported on the Channel 4 News that Diana was first placed in a small private morgue rather than a Royal palace, not because it was standard procedure in a Royal death abroad as the spin-doctored reports had stated, but because the Queen was so scathing about Diana that no-way did she want 'her' placed in one of her buildings. According to the Channel 4 report, it was largely due to public outcry and the pleading of Charles that she was eventually moved to a Royal Building. The Queen obviously did not want the People's Princess to get a Royal funeral in any shape or form. And of course, it was the Queen who was instrumental in removing HRH from Diana's title. The Queen is now being to subjected to a barrage of public outpouring. She is having to shift ground fast. She was forced to give a completely stale address the Nation on Friday evening before the funeral - this is unprecedented to see the head of state being buffeted on the waves of public outcry. Has the whole mess got too big for the House of Windsor?

What of the Papperazzi films?

It was revealed that a day later, the 'French Police' (who we are being led to believe is leading this investigation) decide to develop the photos apparently taken by the papperazzi on motorcycles. If any photographs exist they will have been developed straight away and are now being vetted. Telling photos may well be removed by MI6.

How can we know what is true and what is not?

People have been asking me 'how' I know the media is moulding and remoulding the truth to some covert plan? People are so trusting of these 'respectable' institutions like CNN or the BBC. But Britons - look how the BBC presented a completely skewed image of the Falkland‘s War, the Gulf War, the Minor's Strike, the Poll Tax riots, the Criminal Justice Act riots, or the Sea Empress disaster in a way which was far from what actually happened. This is not by journalistic chance or quirk. And Americans - see how the Big Media massaged and remoulded the News of the 'Blacks/Syphilis' scandal and the 'CIA/Drugs' scandal through different news bulletins.

Look at the Media with any possibility in your mind, not just the one they want to furtively push into your mind. The First Report is often the least doctored, the least massaged.

What has Col. Gaddafi got to do with it?

The BBC went out of their way on September 3rd 1997 to mention the comments of Col. Gaddafi of Libya. The Dictator claims, along with many Arab nations that Diana and Dodi were killed by British and French Intelligence. Although it is easy to call this a Dictator‘s propaganda‘, we must bear in mind that British Intelligence have been all over Libya, Gaddafi would know much about how they operate.

But, more importantly, why the hell did the BBC bother telling the Nation about the comments of an Arab who hasn‘t been in the British News for ages? I say it is do undermine Westerners who are close to the truth. For example, at the start of the Vietnam War, every self-respecting right-wing American was anti sending American Boys out there to fight for a load of Gooks‘ thousands of miles away. But of course, when being anti-war became associated with left-wing subversives‘, Joe Reactionary had to be seen to support the war, helping to prolong the American losses.

The same sort of currents are operating here. MI6 want to paint Intelligence Job‘ theorists as being in league with the Arabs! Magic eh?

Mr. and Mrs. Dodi Fayed

Rumours abound in the UK, that Al-Fayed was to help Diana set-up a Charitable Foundation, which obviously would be seen to be strengthening their bond. Other rumours suggested she was to retire from Public life in the Winter, possibly marrying Dodi.

The marriage rumours are now near fact. A close friend of Dodi told a British Arabic newspaper that the couple did indeed intend to marry this year. Also, Diana and Dodi had visited a top Paris jeweller on the fateful day - a £130,000 ring was purchased. This must surly be an engagement ring. Dodi told the jeweller how much he was in love with the Princess. If Establishment moles had discovered that a wedding announcement was imminent, they would have had to act immediately. If she was topped after this announcement, too many people would be suspicious. They could not allow this announcement - no way, not no how.

Ok, just how do you suppose MI6 set this up?

People have asked me, quite reasonably, 'Why did MI6 top her in such a built up area? Why did they not kill her by a more definite method?' Well, if they'd gone for the 'mad gunman' acting alone, the schizoid lunge in the street, the car crash in the isolated country lane, the 'suicide' then the whole world would be screaming, 'MI6! MI6! MI6!' No, that would be far too obvious. It had to look like a believable random accident.

It is now clear that no one bar two, and I'll repeat that, NO ONE bar two, can claim to have been a witness to the actual crash, not even the famed, 'American Tourists'. The Papperazzi, the French police now have to admit, did not appear on the seen until a short time later. NONE of the Papperazzi saw the crash! NONE of the pedestrian witnesses saw the crash. Trevor Rees-Jones is the one of two people alive who likely saw what happened. Trevor Rees-Jones, I now believe, will suffer a relapse and die, or he'll be too cabbaged to divulge any facts. I'd like to see exactly what's going on in that hospital room, exactly what's going into that man's drip.

I haven't discounted that Trevor Rees-Jones was in on it in some way.

If MI6 couldn't have run them off the road under the bridge, no doubt there would have been a crash somewhere else.

Henri Paul

If anyone is truly squirming in their graves at this time, it's Henri Paul, until his death the Deputy head of security at the Ritz and the driver on the night of the assassination. The news media's treatment of this poor fellow is getting to be blackly comic. It's got to the stage that it seems there wasn't a man in France less suitable to have driven Dodi and Diana on that night. Not only have we been given the impression of Paul as a hopeless alcoholic, but also a man not qualified to drive a limo and a man hooked on Prozac. One French doctor quoted in the Times 11th September 1997, suggested the level of intoxication apparently riddling Paul's body paints a picture of a man on the edge, a man in the final desperate throws of life, someone in need of institutional care. And yet, this man not only keeps down an important job at the Ritz but is unfeasibly able to mask his problems from his workmates, the Ritz security cameras and Trevor Rees-Jones who we are led to believe is Dodi's shadow. This just does not add up.

It seems as if the case against the chasing paperazzi was always going to be weak and was always going to crumble. It seems as if the drunk driver was a contingency measure which has now risen to become the focal point of the cover-up's false truth. The initial blood tests on Paul were surprisingly late, coming nearly 3 days after the crash. And, remarkably, the third blood-test as demanded by Paul's family and the Fayed's was nearly five days incoming. This smacks of behind the scenes scheming. It's as if the police and whoever are truly controlling them are plotting away as to how to proceed. They are deciding how to fake evidence, how to present evidence, what to reveal, what not to reveal. It seems that the cover-up fears the Al-Fayeds and any independent investigation they may instigate. By thoroughly discrediting Paul, MI6 are laying much of the blame on Al-Fayed. In fact, there is even talk of prosecuting the Ritz! Al-Fayed is not a stupid man. He must know everything is skewed. He's trying to get to grips with the situation, trying to plan his next move. He must know the whole weight of secret government is against him. I'm no natural fan of the Rich, 'self-made' or otherwise, but I dearly hope Al-Fayed can stick one on them, shame them to Hell.

The Evil of the Intelligence Agencies

Some of you have had difficulty with the idea of Western Intelligence Services committing such an appalling act of terrorism. It's as if most of us have some child-like ideas of heroic James Bonds protecting us from evil empires and marauding 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' or some other manufactured threat. Some have tried to tell me that our good old MI6 boys aren't like those mind-controlling drugs-dealing CIA goons. Well, I tell you never is the phrase 'our American cousins' so fondly used as between these agencies.

The way many view it, it's as if MI6 are good old cuddly Brits keeping us all safe, saving the day for freedom and democracy, and we should be grateful. It as if were meant to be grateful that 'the powers that be' have selected us for 'freedom' rather and 'dictatorship'. That's rather like the Slave who's grateful for receiving ten lashings rather than twenty at the hands of his Feudal master.

Sure, there's a real role whereby intelligence agencies are engaged in what we might call 'legitimate' activities, but there is a whole other layer that you'll seldom if ever read about in your 'popular memoirs'. There's a whole upper echelon that won't be read in your 'Spycatcher' or your 'Inside Intelligence'.

If anyone has any glowing notions of western Intelligence than they need only remember Yvonne Fletcher, a young policewoman slaughtered in the prime of her life, not by stray bullets from the London's Libyan Embassy as we had been told, but by an unknown gunman linked to American and British intelligence. These revelations quietly slipped onto British Television screens in a Channel 4 Dispatches expose, and prompted a Commons debate of which nothing much came (those interested in the Yvonne Fletcher killing should look out for a police report said by Home Secretary Jack Straw to be appearing at the end of September 1997). Is this to be the true legacy of the Diana assassination, an obscure TV documentary twenty years later? Let's hope not.

Of course, British intelligence has harassed Diana for many years before they actually killed her. This was most apparent when MI5 were exposed as the originators of the so-called 'Squidgygate tapes', with revealed intimate phone-calls between Diana and her lover. But it doesn't stop there by any means.

It is highly likely that Diana's one-time bodyguard and illicit lover Barry Mannakee, who died a few years back in a 'motorcycle accident', was an MI5 termination. In a fit of grief Diana stated so herself, believing MI5 to be the perpetrators although she was later to 'calm down' and retract. It stands as a testament to Diana's immense strength that she was able to withstand the Intelligence barrage for as long as she did, so much so, that they finally had to physically kill her to remove the 'Diana problem'.

It was interesting to note that the Daily Mail on 6th September 1997 mentioned that Diana's ex-lover James Hewitt had deposited his collection of love-letters in a bank vault lest the should be seized by the 'security services'.

Who gave the nod?

I am aware that in earlier version of this document, there I presented little in the way of evidence to link the Assassination specifically to MI6. Well, let's try and discover who has targeted Diana in the past and who might have the wherewithal to pull the killing off.

Many, including myself, argued that the calm, disinterested way in which the Tory leader, William Hague reacted to Diana's death was the reaction of a man unsuprised by the events, a man who was expecting the news. Of course, this is speculative, and might point more to the cold unfeeling otherness need to lead such a horrible bunch of political has-beens. Yet, as has been demonstrated in British politics 60s, 70s, 80s right up until the recent revelations concerning MI5's files on prominent New Labour figures the security do not work for the British Government, the British people, but for the British Establishment. All major Labour politicians have been monitored, bugged, harassed and surveyed by the Intelligence Services, sometimes inducing paranoia as in the case of Harold Wilson. No, it's clear that British Intelligence is a purely right-wing organisation, often functioning as a Tory shadow Government when public psychology can no longer be moulded and Labour come briefly into power. Of course, this has been clouded somewhat with the current Labour government, a government in many ways as far to the right as the Conservatives. This turnabout came when an up-and-coming young centrist Labour politician was invited to join the notorious Bilderberg Group, for many a linchpin of the so-called 'New World Order'. Is it just coincidence that just a few years after Tony Blair's initiation into Bilderberg, he had turned a social democratic party who were always going to overturn the Tories into a Tory Party MkII, thus easing the British Establishment's passage? Ok, so the British Establishment had lost a Party who would better preserve peripheral aspects of the British constitution like highly centralised government, hereditary peers etc., but at least they had a Labour leader as committed to ultra-liberal economics, slashing social provision and retaining major Constitutional institutions as the Tories. Although the British Establishment wouldn't have quite the same direct control over government, they could rest assured that Tony Blair is a pro-Europe Conservative. It's kind of like the Old World Order trusting the New.

I'm not particularly happy with the term 'New World Order'. Although there is a growing consensus as to what it actually means. For American Militia types, it's the surrender of the American Constitution to one drawn up by the UN, for Moslems it's the domination of America over their lands, for the left it's the rise of corporate-fascism, there are countless definitions. For I simply see the New World Order as just another manifestation of the Old World Order which has always run the affairs of the world to their own ends via countless mutations. There may be some world-wide move to replace the current organised world chaos with a system ruthlessly enforced to run like clockwork. Either way, it's the politics of the same kind of 'World-wide government' which has ruled down the ages through Royal Bloodlines, Chivilriac Orders, Organised Religions which has muted into Business Groups, High-Finance, Intelligence agencies, Big Media and the Bilderberg-type powergroups. I don't see why we should expect the 'New World Order' to suddenly initiate a 'take over' when they successfully managed that centuries ago and have been ruling ever since.

What I am leading to is whether Diana was killed on purely domestic orders, or whether she was killed by the larger hidden 'World Government', something like Dr. John Cole's 'Commitee of 300'. Well, we could fantasise that George Bush is there, sat at his round-table with his NWO Sekret Government friends.

We could fantasise about a grovelling British World Government contingent saying something like, 'George. There's this Diana woman she's undermining our British Constitutional System. I think we should instigate a Termination?'.

And then George could say, 'Goddamn Brits, thinking they're important. Hey guys, the NWO World Government can't act on your Domestic issues, can't you get your, erm, MI5 to deal with it?'.

'Well, we tried to discredit her - we tapped her phone, killed her body guard - tried to mentally destablise her'.

'Well, like I said guys, the NWO Government can't mess around with what goes on in your little island', George could chuckle.

'But what about landmines, George? She's been moaning about those - people are listening. I mean even your Bill Clinton's talking about banning them, so much for the Bilderberg Group. I mean it's the Arms trade, George. Surely that's NWO business? Landmines today, it'll be fighter jets to Indonesia tomorrow.'

'Goddammit - you Brits have got a point there! Yeah, ok guys - Diana's gonna have an accident'.

This is obviously a humorous account but it's a possible embellishment of something near the truth. It wouldn't be the first time the New World Order have murdered the innocent in the pursuit of perceived political advantages, remember Yvonne Fletcher. Yet, from the politics of Diana's dealings with the British Establishment, it would seem most likely that a purely domestic termination was planned and executed on the Orders of those concerned with the British Constitutional System. Years ago it was decided to orchestrate an intelligence campaign against Diana, through phone-taps, media maulings the termination of her one-time lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee. This had failed, and throughout this time Diana was getting more and more dangerous. It seems bizarre now that before her death the Media was full of how devastating was her effect on the Monarchy, now the media has fallen silent, as if she was nothing but a Royal asset. The destablisation campaign had failed, it doesn't take to much thinking to devise a possible next-step, namely, 'death'.

From Diana's past problems with the Intelligence services it's clear that there was a sizable plot to undermine her, a course of action decided by MI5/6, the Royal Family and certain old-guard Conservative politicians. Therefore, it would seems likely that from these the 'nod' came. From who exactly we probably will never know.

STAY TUNED TO THE NGS and for the latest.

Back to Diana page