The Assassination of Princess Diana

20 Jan, 2023

“The Assassination of Princess Diana”, published in three parts in Daily Pakistan, 28-30 December, 2022

Princess Diana died as a result of a car crash in one of the tunnels in Paris in the very early hours of August 31, 1997. Her death stunned the world and led to an unprecedented, and, for the royal family, embarrassingly unexpected, outpouring of grief. A quarter of a century has elapsed since her death, but the world has not, for one moment, forgotten the beautiful, lonely and wronged princess. When she died there were strong suspicions of foul play in her death. Many writers who have investigated the matter have concluded that indeed, she was assassinated in a joint MI6-CIA operation. The royal coroner resisted an investigation into the death for seven years. Only revelations by Diana’s butler Paul Burrell generated sufficient public pressure to force him to open an inquest in 2005!

Why did the Anglo-American Establishment desire to eliminate Princess Diana? What crime had she committed against this Malthusian Establishment? In order to understand the matter one has to first look at the extremely unhappy state of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. It was a marriage both had entered into very reluctantly. Prince Charles was in love with Camilla Parker Bowles. Five days before the marriage, Prince Charles told Lord Romsey, grandson of Lord Mountbatten, that Camilla was the only woman he had ever loved. Diana, on the other hand, a young girl not yet 20, looked up to Prince Charles as the prince of her dreams. But, even before her marriage, she was greatly disillusioned by his attitude.

A mere three weeks before their marriage, the royal family held a belated 20th birthday party for Diana. Diana was born on July 1, 1961 while the wedding took place on July 29, 1961. At this event Elton John entertained the guests. At the party Prince Charles not only did not dance with Diana even once, which was highly insulting, he went to bed early. Diana stayed on in the party dancing till 5:00 AM – by that time the guests and the servants had left. At the end of the party Diana drove home and told her father, Earl Spencer, that the marriage was off. Instead of respecting her wishes he tried to persuade her that things would be alright. When she talked to her sisters they told her that there was no room for backing off anymore as her pictures now appeared on tea towels. Only her grandmother Lady Fermoy was not in favor of the marriage. She told Diana: “I don’t think marrying into the royal family will suit you. Their sense of humor and lifestyle are very different.”

Three weeks before the marriage Prince Charles approached his parents regarding his misgivings about the marriage. He did not wish to marry Diana. According to one writer, “Prince Philip became so angry and abusive that the eldest son fled the room in terror.” He then turned to Camilla for solace and support. Camilla told him that if he backed out of the marriage she would not speak to him! She urged him to go ahead with the marriage. She perhaps felt that Diana was a meek young girl who would be easily handled by the two of them. Little did she know. So, both Diana and Charles had serious doubts about the marriage but pressures forced them into the unhappy union.

Diana had never had a boyfriend. Charles was the first man she had dated. It was expected that Charles would formally propose to Diana on New Year 1981 but he procrastinated. He had a luxurious lifestyle and a perfect mistress – he did not want to change things and enter a marriage that could make demands on his unfettered lifestyle. “For God’s sake, bloody well get on with it”, is what his frustrated father is reported to have said to him. He proposed to her in February 1981 and when she giggled yes in response, he snubbed her. On the wedding day Diana spotted Camilla as she walked along the aisle. In her recorded messages she mentioned her bulimia generated by the stress, among other things, of Camilla’s constant thoughts, of the pressure of dealing with a high-profile position, as well as the indifference of her husband. Diana recorded her impressions of the atmosphere at Buckingham Palace in the following words: “I couldn’t believe how cold everyone was. I was told one thing but actually another thing was going on. The lies and the deceit.” Diana stated: “On our honeymoon, for instance, we were opening our diaries to discuss something. Out come two pictures of Camilla. On our honeymoon we have our white tie dinner for President Sadat [of Egypt]. Cufflinks arrive on his wrists – two ‘Cs entwined like Chanel ‘C’s. Got it in one; knew exactly. ‘Camilla gave you those didn’t she?’ He said: ‘Yes, so what’s wrong? They’re a present from a friend.’ And boy, did we have a row.” Thus Camilla’s perennial presence bedeviled the marriage from day one.

When Diana was expecting the first child Charles was continually sleeping with Camilla and Diana suspected so. In the third month of her pregnancy she suffered from serious morning sickness one day and was heard shouting that she wanted to kill herself. Charles called her bluff challenging her to do so. And she hurled herself from the stairs landing as a bundle, where the Queen, to her horror found her.  A doctor and a gynecologist were called, but Charles just walked away from his battered and bruised wife.  He was extremely selfish. Prince William was born on June 21, 1982. The royal family thus had the new heir. “When we had William we had to find a date in a diary that suited him [Prince Charles] and his polo.” She further stated in a recorded message: “[At William’s christening] I was treated like nobody else’s business on 4th August [1982]. Nobody asked me when it was suitable for William – 11 o’ clock couldn’t have been worse. Endless pictures of the Queen, Queen Mother, Charles and William. I was excluded totally that day.”

Princess Anne’s first lover was Andrew Parker-Bowles. The Queen too liked him but the Princess could not marry him because he was a Catholic! So Princess Anne ending up marrying Mark Phillips. But when her marriage hit the rocks she reverted to her first lover, Andrew Parker-Bowles. But Andrew was married to Camilla. So there was a foursome – Prince Charles was sleeping with Camilla whose husband was sleeping with the sister of Prince Charles! These affairs remained concealed from the public. In the words of an employee of the royal household: “Anne and Charles believed they were in a gossip-proof situation. Their secret relationships were with a married couple who were their best friends.” While all this was going on the second child Harry arrived. Diana told her biographer Andrew Morton about the times around the birth of Harry (born September 15, 1984): Charles always wanted a girl for a second child. Diana states: “Harry arrived. Harry had red hair, Harry was a boy. First comment was ‘Oh God, it’s a boy.’ Second comment ‘and he’s even got red hair.’ Something inside me closed off. By then I knew he had gone back to his lady but somehow we’d managed to have Harry.”

After Harry’s birth there was no room for conjugal relations in the marriage. Diana was only 23 at the time. Wendy Berry, housekeeper at Highgrove, said: “The prince’s indifference would have been crushing for anyone. He was so aloof and uncaring. I began to see the absolute desperation and frustration felt by both the prince and the princess, having to live within a marriage that was patently falling apart at the seams.” The new turn in their marriage led to blistering rows. And when they fought they did not care about their language and about who was watching or hearing.  “You’re a shit Charles, an absolute shit” she once leaned out of the window and shouted as Charles stormed out of the house and drove away. On another occasion she threw a teapot at him, yelling: “You’re a fucking animal Charles and I hate you.” This was a painful situation. Her biographer wrote: “He was the man she wanted to be with for the rest of her life and she was willing to jump through any hoop or hurdle to win him.” But to accept a position in which she was his second choice, if at all, was not possible for her. As she said: “He [Charles] ignores me everywhere. Ignored everywhere and have been for a long time. …. He just dismisses me. [The worst day of my life] was realizing that Charles had gone back to Camilla.” So if the conjugal relations had ended, it was certainly not Diana’s fault.

There was one upside for Diana in the deeply depressing circumstances of her royal life. The crowds just loved her. Noel Botham writes: “Jealousy and resentment of her phenomenal success as the principal royal attraction already colored Charles’s attitude towards Diana, and it began affecting him in other ways too, principally his growing dependence on Camilla…” This resentment was also shared by royal courtiers and by his aides, “who were beginning to realize that Princess Diana could be a greater threat to the stability of the royal family than anyone had so far realized.” Diana had no support whatsoever in the royal confines. She was expected to accept Charles’s adultery without complaining or reacting. “In private, all the royal women tended to sympathize with Charles over Diana’s refusal to be compliant about Camilla” wrote Botham. Prince Charles and his father agreed that Diana was being unreasonable “in her refusal to accept the normality of Charles’s affair with Camilla.”

It never occurred to anyone that a completely isolated beautiful young woman in her twenties might take on a lover of her own. In 1985, Sergeant Barry Mannakee was assigned to her. He was 37, was good looking and understood her situation and sympathized with her. Andrew Morton wrote: “Perhaps she reserved her fondest memories for Sergeant Barry Mannakee who became a body guard at a time when she felt lost and alone. He sensed her bewilderment and became a shoulder to lean on during the painful period.” Her closeness with Mannakee was noticed and an angry Charles had him transferred when he overheard Mannakee advising Diana on how to deal with Camilla. Eight months later Mannakee was killed by the agencies, in what was made to look like a motorbike accident. Charles broke the news to Diana “in a calculated and brutal way designed to cause her the maximum amount of pain.” Just as she was about to emerge from the car to board a plane to attend the Cannes festival he said that he had heard from the protection unit that “poor Barry Mannakee was killed. Some kind of motorcycle accident.” As Diana burst into tears he pushed her out saying sarcastically “Let’s go darling. Your press awaits you.”

Diana was a woman in search of love. She got involved with James Hewitt her riding instructor. She wanted to marry him but Hewitt seems to have avoided that, partly because he received veiled death threats and partly out of greed - he sold the story to a French writer who published a book on their love story. Most of Diana’s affairs, excepting the ones with Hasnat Khan and property developer Christopher Walley, were dealt with by the media, with or without help from the agencies, in a scathing way. When Diana was involved with Hasnat Khan, her mother told her firmly to “stop going out with fucking niggers.” But Diana was looking for love, for a proper family life with a man who loved her and who she loved and it did not matter whether it was a “fucking nigger” or a white Anglo-Saxon.

In July1992 Andrew Morton’s biography of Diana appeared. It was this biography that first revealed to the public the reality of the Camilla-Charles affair. It shed light on her difficult life at the palace and also revealed her involvement with some of the men. It exposed the selfishness of Charles who remained unmoved by several attempts on her part to harm herself seriously – these suicide attempts were failed attempts at getting his attention – they were cries for help. Her biography had a great impact on the public mind. “Her in-laws were not just rocked to the foundation, but were in danger of falling down entirely.” Even though Diana had supplied the author with many hours of tape-recordings, she denied any involvement because she grew fearful of the royal reaction. Prince Philip was furious. Noel Botham writes: “To Prince Philip it was a devastating blow. He saw all his hard work in reshaping and consolidating the family since 1947 being wiped out by Diana’s ill-judged revelations. It stirred feelings of real hatred for the first time, I was told.” Camilla was subjected to enormous public resentment and took refuge overseas in order to avoid the public and the press. Further, leaders of the Church of England expressed a deep lack of confidence in Charles – how could he, after sacred vows in church, continue his adulterous relation? The publication of this book not only rendered the differences between Diana and Charles irreconcilable, it also distanced her further from the royal family.

The matters were further aggravated by two tapes which were leaked by the agencies. In one tape was the recording of a conversation that took place between Diana and James Gilby, a car dealer, on New-Year’s eve of 1989. This conversation was picked up by a radio buff on January 4, 1989. How could that be? Apparently, the conversation had been recorded and “cleaned up” for “noise” using equipment that only the MI5 and MI6 possessed, and then rebroadcast. In the conversation Gilby used the name Squidgy for Diana, hence the name Squidgygate tapes. In the conversation Diana had expressed her fear of getting pregnant indicating the physical nature of the relationship. The transcript of the tapes was published by the tabloid The Sun in August 1992. This was just a month after the publication of Diana’s biography and caused deep embarrassment to Diana. However, in January 1993, recording of an intimate and lewd conversation between Charles and Camilla were leaked to the media. This conversation was recorded on 17 December 1989. In the Charles-Camilla conversation: “Charles admits he needs her several times a week. It would be much easier if he lived inside her trousers. But when she proposes he turn into a pair of knickers, he comes up with the idea of becoming a Tampax.”

The publication of the nighttime Camilla-Charles chat generated an enormous public response. Camilla began receiving a huge volume of hate mail every day. She was attacked by shoppers with bread rolls in a store and had to take refuge in her home. She was shattered by this exposure and lost 25 pounds in weight and seemed to age by a decade. Diana had no role in this leakage. The two leaked conversations had two consequences. Firstly, since it was Diana’s voice in Squidgytapes, it led to formal separation between Diana and Charles. On December 9, 1992 PM John Major stated: “it is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate.” The other consequence was the eventual divorce between Andrew and Camilla, which had to await a public confession by Charles.

The royal family had now turned hostile to Diana. And Diana realized that certain individuals in the palace, men in “grey suits” and educated in public schools, who considered themselves to be the guardians of monarchy, had become her enemies. In the year 1994 Charles indulged in two public relations exercises. Firstly, in a TV documentary, he made it clear that Diana was nothing more than a hired womb. Secondly, a biography of Charles was published in which the author, based on information supplied by Charles, mentioned that the affair with Camilla started sometime in 1987 or 1988 after Diana and Charles started leading separate lives. This was an utter lie. However, soon after Charles’s confession Andrew and Camilla filed for divorce on grounds that in the past three years, they had not slept under the same roof for more than three months. On January 19, 1995, the High Court took a mere three minutes to grant them divorce. They had been married for 21 years.

The TV interview of Charles might have been the reason for an interview that Diana did with the BBC’s Panorama program, that was aired on November 24, 1995. Diana did not assess how the interview was to bring her into the crosshairs of the royal family, the courtiers and the agencies. Noel Botham writes: “The whole interview was a masterly piece of theatre, designed with orchestrated pre-publicity, to wring the maximum sympathy and tears from the multi-million-strong viewing audience.” Two of her remarks remain enshrined in public memory – one, that she thought Charles was unfit to be king, and second “There were three of us in this marriage, so it was bit crowded.” Botham comments: “If Diana’s intention was to expose the full extent of her husband and Camilla’s treachery and heap further contempt and loathing on them from an already disgusted public, then she succeeded brilliantly.”

This interview immediately generated reactions from those concerned. Botham assesses: “What angered the men in grey suits, however was that Diana had developed the capability of outmaneuvering them.” On November 25, the very next day, the New York Times carried a piece by the British writer A.N. Wilson who referred to the interview as a “skillfully organized attack on the institution of monarchy itself.” He emphasized that “[T]he Establishment can get very nasty indeed, and that for all her undoubted popularity, if she continues to rock the boat in this way, the Establishment will simply get rid of her.” This was a most explicit, prompt, and dire warning.  Military historian John Keegan wrote in the Daily Telegraph in November 1995: “The important thing is Diana should set limits to her ambitions. She has said she will not go quietly. She must, however, not go too far … The people know how much change in the system they desire. If the Princess exceeds their wishes, it is she who will become the casualty, not the monarchy.” It is thus clear that discussion of her possible elimination had begun openly after the Panorama interview. And the Princess was alone in her personal life – the royal family had been estranged and her own family also shunned her.

The reaction of the royal family was swift and unsparing. On December 21, 1995, less than a month after the interview, the Queen wrote letters to Charles and Diana ordering them to divorce. The Queen privately directed Charles not to haggle over the terms of the divorce. Without any argument Charles paid her 17 million pounds as part of the settlement. The Queen however punished Diana by taking away her royal title. Even though she retained the title of Princess of Wales she was no longer HRH (Her Royal Highness).  As Botham wrote: “It was such a shabby punishment, and even though delivered with a golden slipper, it was still a kick in the face of Diana. Staff and friends nodded when they heard her most screamed cry, ‘After all I’ve fucking done for that family.”

The royalty had cast her off and was unsparing in that respect. Her court enemies now could think of eliminating her because, as long as she was alive, Charles could not ascend the throne easily. The security that came with the HRH title was now removed. Diana always felt that Prince Philip, the Queen’s husband, did not like her. In spring 1996 she had told her friend and fashion designer Roberto Devorik “Prince Philip wants to see me dead.” Again, in June 1996 she pointed to a portrait of Prince Philip and said “He really hates me and would like to see me disappear.” In December 1995 Time magazine quoted a “veteran royal watcher” as saying “The Queen is disgusted with Diana and wishes she’d just go away.”

Diana’s former private secretary Patrick Jephson told the tabloid The Sun in October 2003: “Early in 1996 the Princess assured me that somebody had cut the brake pipes of her car and that her apartments at the Kensington Palace had been bugged.” This incident happened in November 1995. As she pressed her brakes when a traffic light turned red, nothing happened – the car kept moving forward. Eventually when the car came to a halt she jumped out and returned to Kensington Palace in a taxi and rang up Simone Simmons and told her “Someone’s tampered with my brakes.” Hasnat Khan noticed that she had changed her car, from an Audi to a BMW. When Hasnat asked her the reason for the change she told him that the brakes had been tampered with so she decided to change the car.

The BMW had a very strange accident on 22 March 1996. According to the Daily Mail: “A Porsche 911 smashed into a parked Fiat and sent it careering into the path of [Diana’s] rented BMW… The front wing and driver’s side of Diana’s car were mangled. A policeman at the scene: ‘The Fiat was propelled across the road into the path of oncoming cars… The BMW is too damaged to be driven away.” Diana, reportedly, was “white-faced with shock” but, as a passing motorist said, “extremely lucky” to have survived. Hurtling cars across to oncoming cars to commit assassinations is also a known technique. The report of the police investigation of the accident was never released, nor was this very serious accident mentioned in the Paget report or the London inquest. Why?

In October 1996 Diana gave a written note to her butler Paul Burrell: “This particular phase in my life is most dangerous. My husband is planning an accident in my car, brake failure and serious head injury, in order to make the path clear for him to marry.” In the same note she wrote that she had been “battered, bruised, and abused by the system” for 15 years and that she will “never surrender.” She wrote “I am strong inside and maybe that is a problem for my enemies.” On October 30, 1995 Diana met her lawyer Lord Mishcon in office and told him, in the presence of two other lawyers of his firm that it was planned to eliminate her in a car accident. Lord Mishcon was so disturbed that he wrote down a note based on whatever she told her for his record. When Diana died, Lord Mishcon handed over his note to the Metropolitan Chief Commissioner, who hid it, and did not give it to the French judge investigating the matter. The existence of this note was revealed only in 2003, after Paul Burrell disclosed the existence of a ten-page write up that Diana gave him, expressing her apprehension of being killed in a car accident.

At the beginning of 1997, Diana started a campaign against landmines. When she started her campaign Angola was the country worst hit by landmines. Over 20 million unexploded landmines littered the land. At the time 500,000 Angolans had been killed, and 200,000 maimed. These landmines had been planted by Western powers who had been vying for control of the country’s raw minerals and oil through a proxy civil war - the Soviets backing their opponents. Diana’s pictures with maimed Angolan children had an astounding effect catapulting the Red Cross collections to 1.2 million pounds whereas previous appeals on landmines had not garnered even 50,000 pounds.

But Diana had, somewhat unknowingly, stirred monsters. It was not just the Malthusian arms industry. Angola was at the center of an “arms-for-oil” scandal involving Cheney, Bush, the son of the President of France, and others.  Some of the “most unethical undeclared investments” of the royal family were also in danger of being exposed. Texaco, Chevron, Halliburton, French businessmen, all were involved. In February 1997 Diana received an explicit death threat from a British minister. John Morgan writes: “During a phone call from Nicholas Soames, Britain’s Minister of the Armed Forces, Diana was told to drop her anti-landmines campaign. Soames went on to say: ‘You never know when an accident can happen.’ Although shaken, Diana told her friend Simone Simmons – who witnessed the call – that she was undeterred. ‘We must do something. We cannot allow the slaughter to continue.’” The threat by Soames was a very serious matter – he was an important serving minister.

The scandal known as Angolagate came to light only in 2002, five years after Diana’s death. But as early as 1997 Diana’s involvement threatened all these forces. Jon King and John Beveridge write in their book: “And the CIA, who also benefitted massively from the scandal’s proceeds, was not about to let this happen – certainly not at the hands of some meddlesome jet-set vamp like Diana. … If all it took to keep the cash and oil flowing was to help MI6 to terminate the threat, then, hey – that’s what allies are for, right?” On 23rd August 1993, a week before Diana died, a CIA contract agent met Jon King. King was investigating suspicious and dangerous goings on in British underground facilities. At the end of the meeting this contract agent told Jon King that he was going to leave him with “one last pearl.”  He told Jon: “This information came into my possession a short while ago, and it concerns a plot to eliminate one of the most prominent figures on the world stage… I do not know when or where precisely the hit will take place. I do not know the precise schedule. But as far as I have been made aware it has been planned for a good many months and it will take place within days from now…. very soon … I can tell you Jon, this one will be bigger than Kennedy.” Jon King thought of Clinton or Tony Blair but Diana’s name did not appear on his “radar”. A week later when the fatal crash took place he immediately realized that it was Diana that the CIA agent was referring to.

Diana had begun the anti-landmines campaign on the urging of Hillary Clinton. In view of Diana’s enormous impact, Bill Clinton was persuaded by her to agree to signing an international agreement banning landmines. The agreement was due to be signed in Oslo on 18th September, 1997. Clinton was threatened with scandals about his sex life, and with impeachment, in case he went ahead. He was also told that Diana would no longer be on the scene by that time. This information was provided to Jon King and John Beveridge by their “sources” in the US. Diana’s ability to influence world opinion as well as the president of the US disturbed the Malthusian Anglo-American elite. Diana had the ability to outmaneuver those who had been influencing global opinion through manipulated media. The world opinion stood by her. As Jon King and John Beveridge wrote: “After all, if Diana was capable of so affecting public opinion with regard to landmines, then what next? Gulf War Syndrome? Palestine? Iraq? For a moment at least, the entire corporate edifice was aquiver.” Therefore, Diana had to be eliminated before Clinton signed the treaty banning landmines.

Another development that took place in July 1997 was her sudden and unforeseen involvement with Dodi Al Fayed, the son of the then owner of the Harrods store. The two fell in love very quickly and planned to get married. On the evening of August 30, 1997 Dodi collected an engagement ring as he was going to propose to her formally. There were rumors that Diana was already pregnant. This speedy and utterly unexpected development deeply disturbed the British Establishment. Noel Botham points out: “To the horrified members of the British Establishment who saw the growing possibility of marriage to the Egyptian playboy, prompting Diana’s conversion to Islam, and the birth of a Muslim half-brother or sister for the future King William, the unfolding scenario was totally unacceptable…” The concerns affected other powers as well. Washington and Israel also would not stomach such a possibility. Botham adds “It was widely believed the union of Diana and Dodi signaled a change in world opinion in favor of Arabs and consequently against Israeli interests.”
The prospect of an anti-landmines treaty and of a Diana-Dodi union, thus brought an urgency to the elimination of Diana. The CIA agent who had told Jon King on August 23 that the hit would take place “within days from now” was well informed. When Dodi and Diana arrived in Paris to collect the engagement ring and stay overnight, the elimination plan was in place. The paparazzi, many of whom are known to be employed by various agencies were already present there. There was a police escort present when the plane landed at the Le Bourget airport.  But when the cars hit the A1 auto route the police escort seems to have melted away. Unexpectedly Henri Paul, head of the security at Ritz hotel in Paris, was also at the airport. He was on leave, but hearing of the arrival of Diana and Dodi, he cancelled his leave and returned to Paris. He was to play a mysterious role that evening and also died in the accident. The paparazzi were more aggressive than usual on that day.

On way to the Ritz hotel, which was also owned by the Fayed family, an incident adumbrated what was to come later. According to press report a black Peugeot 205 sedan deliberately swerved in front of the Mercedes S 600 in which Diana and Dodi were traveling, forcing the Mercedes to brake. According to Jon King and John Beveridge: “At which point a motorbike pulled alongside and its pillion passenger, camera in hand, fired off a volley of high powered flashes through the side window, temporarily blinding both driver and passenger alike.” The temporary blinding of the driver through a high-powered flashlight was to play a crucial role in the car crash later that night. When the couple arrived at the Ritz a large number of Paparazzi had assembled. The CCTV footage revealed certain unidentified persons, who were neither tourists nor paparazzi, who appeared on the scene around 4:00 PM and stayed there all evening. Ex-Scotland Yard detective chief superintended John McNamara later identified them as British and foreign intelligence agents. McNamara investigated the deaths on behalf of Ritz and Mohammad Al Fayed, father of Dodi.

Ex MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson has pointed out that on the weekend when Diana and Dodi died, an unusually high number of important MI6 personnel were present in Paris. What were they doing there? He has particularly mentioned Nicholas Langman and Richard Spearman. Spearman was previously the personal secretary of the chief of MI6 and was thus privy to the most secret MI6 operations. Further, the wireless operator in the British Embassy revealed that just before midnight two well-spoken men burst through the door of the communications room and ordered him to leave immediately and not to return until told to do so. The operator would not have relinquished the charge of the room to strangers but he recognized one of the men as Sir (now Lord) Robert Fellowes, the secretary of the Queen, and therefore left. Even though Fellowes denies being in Paris that night the wireless operator had no reason to lie and endanger his life (while Fellowes had every reason to lie). The operator told someone: “It was that bastard Fellowes. He turfed me out of my own office. He was in Paris the night Diana died.” The record of the first two phone calls around that midnight is missing from the embassy logs.

In his extremely important book “How They Murdered Princess Diana – The Shocking Evidence”, John Morgan has established that five days before the Diana assassination, the MI6 chief at Paris was changed. The new chief, Sherard Cowper-Coles, replaced Eugene Curley. For some reason the MI6 tried to hide this from the inquest. Why? It is possible that Eugene Curley was unwilling to carry out the assassination and so had to be replaced.  Morgan has dissected the relevant evidence and destroyed the false statements made by MI6 personnel to the inquest that Cowper-Coles assumed charged on August 31, 1997, on the very day that Diana died! There is little doubt that high level MI6 and other personnel were present on the fatal weekend in Paris. And they were not there for a Parisian holiday but on a secret mission.

Diana and Dodi were supposed to dine at the Ritz restaurant. But since their clothes had been sent to Dodi’s apartment, they had to go there first to change. When they arrived at Dodi’s apartment the paparazzi were there and were quite aggressive – so aggressive that Dodi’s security could not handle them. This aggression upset the Princess as well as Dodi. In view of the attitude of the paparazzi they cancelled their program of eating at the restaurant and decided to eat in their hotel suite. As the couple got off the car at the Ritz about fifty paparazzi were present. Jon King and John Beveridge point out; “For some reason the tension was even more aggressive than usual. Insults flew. Scuffles broke out. Shouts went up as bodies jostled for position.” It appears that there was a reason for this aggression – to create a pretext for what Henri Paul was to do later that night.

After the Princess and Dodi had spent time at their Ritz suite and had eaten and taken a drink, they were happy and relaxed. In view of the attitude of the paparazzi the best thing was to stay overnight at the Ritz which offered the best security. However, Henri Paul, who had disappeared for three hours from 7-10 PM that evening, persuaded Dodi to go to the flat. Further he proposed to call a different limousine and personally drive them to their flat. He lied to the two personal guards of Dodi that the new plan had been approved by London (i.e. Dodi’s father). He also insisted that he did not require any security and that he will drive them alone. However, the two bodyguards insisted on accompanying them. VIP protocols requires seven security personnel to accompany a VIP. After much haggling it was agreed that one security guard, Trevor Rees-Jones would be in the car with the Princess and Dodi and Henri Paul as driver whereas the other, Kez Wingfield, would be in a follow up car. This violation of the VIP protocols was to cost not just the Princess and Dodi, but also Henri Paul his life. The odd behavior of Henri Paul can only be understood if one realizes that he was working for MI6 who used him to drive the car into the tunnel but did not let him in on the entire plan.

The alternate limousine was an S 280 Mercedes that had, some weeks earlier, been stolen at gunpoint. When it was found its EMS (Electronic Management System), a microchip that controls it steering, brakes, etc. had been removed. The EMS has very little resale value so that its theft was done to, most probably, insert a replacement later that enabled someone from outside to control the car if and when needed. To take over the control of a vehicle externally is a method of assassination in which the steering is controlled and brakes failed externally, usually from a rear vehicle – this method is known as Boston brakes. When the Mercedes S280 departed from the rear of the Ritz there were already unidentified faces at the rear. Further a small vehicle started tailing the Mercedes.

All those who knew Diana well, including her Private Secretary Michael Gibbins, Hasnat Khan, her body guard Ken Wharfe, Dickie Arbiter, her press secretary, and others, stated that Diana was very particular about fastening her seat belt. In view of her apprehensions that she would be killed in a car accident this concern becomes even more obvious. Investigator David Price found that Diana’s seat belt was jammed. According to the Paget Report: “David Price’s investigation of the seat belts showed that they were in a good operational condition with the exception of the rear right seat belt, which was found to be jammed in the retracted position because part of the internal mechanism had become displaced.” Did someone tamper with the rear right seat belt of the Mercedes S 280? Nobody investigated as to why or how or when the seat belt malfunction occurred. Only Diana’s seat belt was jammed and all others were in working condition! This information was withheld from the jury! Why?

Surprisingly, Henri Paul did not take the safest, most well-lit, policed and shortest route to the apartment, which was via Champs Elysees. This decision is again questionable. He, instead, took a much longer route that took him into the rather dark tunnel where the fatal crash occurred. Richard Tomlinson has expressed the view that Henri Paul was carrying out instructions except that “the final outcome was not the finale that had been promised to Henri Paul. He too was to prove a gullible victim of Diana’s killers.” Chief Inspector Mules said that he had recovered 12,565 francs in cash (1,265 pounds) from the dead body of Henri Paul. So, in Tomlinson’s view: “If one accepts the premise that the wad of cash in Paul’s pocket, and the recent huge payments into his secret bank accounts, were to pay for cooperation in an arranged accident, then what happened next was all part of the plan dictated by his intelligence pay masters.” Henri Paul was operating seventeen different accounts in three banks and five credit cards. His income was far beyond the salary he was receiving from the Ritz. The police never investigated his huge income! Why?

In order to temporarily blind, stun and disorient the driver the British intelligence employs powerful lights that are suddenly shone into the driver’s face. These lights are far more powerful than the camera flashlights. An SAS officer told Noel Botham “The effect on a driver, at night particularly, is catastrophic. He is totally blinded and mentally stunned. He would be incapable of steering a car.” According to Tomlinson, when he was in MI6, an accident in a tunnel using such blinding lights was discussed as one of the three possible methods to assassinate Milosevic, the Serbian leader. A small white Fiat Uno was apparently waiting at the tunnel entrance and as soon as the S280 entered the tunnel this Uno caught up with it and began nudging it in a corner. This allowed a mysterious motorbike with its two riders to overtake the S280, get right in front, and then flash a blinding light into the eyes of the driver causing him to crash. It is also possible that the control of the S280 was taken over as there was another Mercedes tailing the Uno and one witness on a motorbike had heard a small explosion from the S280 just before it entered the tunnel. Such an explosion is caused in the Boston brakes method and causes brake failure. Eyewitnesses reported that as soon as the S280 crashed one of the riders of the motorbike got off, walked to the car and after looking into it made a military sign to his colleague indicating that the mission had been accomplished.

From his hotel window, a London lawyer Gary Hunter, who had heard the sound of the crash, saw a small car tailed by a white Mercedes exiting the tunnel at 60-70 mph. “My own feeling is that these people were in a hurry not to be there. . . It was obvious they were running away from something. It looked quite sinister.” The side mirror of the crashed S280 had white paint which must have come from the Uno that grazed it. Further, in the right lane, at the entrance of the tunnel red and white debris came from a Fiat Uno and was part of the rear light of a vehicle built in Italy. The Uno and the motorbike riders and the white Mercedes all had disappeared and the French police did not pursue the matter. The motorbike riders, in particular, were never identified. And Gary Hunter died at age 47 in 2004!

To be part of an accident or to witness an accident and not report it to the police is a crime in France. But the French officials seemed very unconcerned about this aspect. When a member of John McNamara’s team traced the Uno, and informed the French police, he was threatened with arrest for interfering in the investigation! It had belonged to a boastful and extremely rich French paparazzo named James Andanson who worked for both MI6 and French intelligence. Commander Mules of the French Criminal Brigade took a further six weeks to contact Andanson and then lied that the car was tireless and without a battery. John McNamara vigorously refuted this stating that the car, which had been in Andanson’s possession, was with a dealer and was on sale, and had been fitted with a new rear tail!

Andanson practically lay low for a couple of years, something odd for a paparazzo. But he had a big mouth and he had been talking to people about his presence in the tunnel at the time of the crash and of having photographed Diana at that time. He had also told some people that the photographs had been hidden at some location and that he intended to publish a book including the photos, a book that he expected to be a sensation. On May 4, 2000, his burnt and charred body was found inside his car, in a remote area, hundreds of miles from his residence. The fireman who first saw his body clearly remembered two bullet holes in Andanson’s head! Despite this the police ruled the death a suicide! Clearly a cover up was going on. There were serious oddities in this death which one cannot cover comprehensively in an article. These have been pointed out by John Morgan, Noel Botham and by Jon King and John Beveridge, among others.

Within a week of the public declaration of his death the offices of the photographic agency, SIPA, for which he worked, were raided by masked gunmen who spent three hours in the office and went straight to the floor where photographs of celebrities were archived. SIPA offices remained open 24/7 but the police did not respond to calls for help in the three hours even though one of the guards had been shot in the foot. The burglars got away with the photographs and some laptops and computer drives containing the pictures. The burglars had dismantled the security cameras. These burglars were never traced by the police. It is believed that they were working for the intelligence agencies.

When the crash took place Henri Paul and Dodi died instantly. The face of Trevor Rees Jones was smashed but he was not dead. The first person on the scene was a motorbike rider named Eric Petel who, after recognizing Diana in the crashed vehicle went straight to the nearby police station to inform them and ask them to call for help. There were no paparazzi on the scene when Petel was there. According to the timeline drawn by John Morgan the crash took place at 12:23 and the first paparazzi arrived at the scene at 12:24. It appears that Petel was at the scene just after 12:23 and left within the minute, before the paparazzi arrived. He was not carrying any cell phone as he did not like cell phones.  The Princess was badly hurt, but, according to a doctor, who was passing by, and first arrived at the scene, she was not critical. The opinion was endorsed by a doctor of the French emergency service SAMU who replaced the first doctor. Further, as pointed out by Morgan, at least seven witnesses who were on the scene early, stated that Diana was conscious in the first few minutes after the crash. Almost all of them heard her mutter the words “My God”.

Since Diana had to be killed, steps in this direction were already ensured. There was a strategy of delaying the arrival of the ambulance, and of delaying her arrival at the hospital, among other things. At some point a decision was taken to transport Diana to the Pitie Salpetriere hospital which was, as noted by the very precise John Morgan, 5.7 km from the crash scene. There were excellent hospitals nearby which were left out. Why? The reasons given by the doctors for choosing this hospital over others, particularly Val de Grace, which is 4.6 km from the crash scene, were mostly false. In fact, most high profile personalities, are usually taken to Val de Grace. It has been noted by John Morgan that “The ambulance left Necker Hospital base at 12:28 am and arrived at the crash scene at 12:40 am. It took 12 minutes to travel 2.3 km – Diana’s ambulance traveled to the scene at around 111/2 kph.” This is astonishing.

Before the police and SAMU arrived, some paparazzi who had reached the scene and began taking pictures instead of calling for help. Seeing this, Clifford Gooroovado, a taxi driver who had rushed to the scene, shouted at the paparazzi “is that all you can do instead of calling for help?” The paparazzi even tried to delay medical help to Diana and her guard! According to eyewitnesses they resisted and blocked help for minutes, when every minute, even seconds, mattered. Were some of them working for agencies? Instead of helping the injured, they were fighting, apparently for pictures, they were also, in the process, obstructing help deliberately!

Jon King and John Beveridge point out: “And further, why was Diana treated by doctors and paramedics for more than 90 minutes, both at the crash site and in the back of the ambulance en route to the hospital?” Diana had internal wounds and her BP fell dangerously low causing a heart attack. The authors ask: “Why was she taken to Pitie Salpetriere hospital – the furthest from the scene – at snail’s pace, when at least two other, closer hospitals could have dealt equally well with the emergency?” And why was the ambulance going at “snail’s pace”? The authors ask further: “Surely if her condition was so delicate that the ambulance was forced to travel at a suspiciously slow pace then prudence would dictate she be taken to the nearest hospital for the swiftest possible medical attention. In this regard, one of Paris’s most noted, and indeed, best-equipped hospitals, Hotel Diu is less than two miles from the seat of the crash. The ambulance drove straight past this hospital on its way to Pitie Salpetriere.”  Do we know of any incidents in which the ambulance carrying a critical passenger drove to the furthest hospital at snail’s pace? Most probably none.

John Morgan has pointed out numerous lies in the testimonies of those related to SAMU and the Fire Brigade who were dealing with Diana. Further, the role of the SAMU and Fire Brigade doctors is highly suspect. For instance, Jean-Marc Martino of SAMU misrepresented the situation to his base. He first stated that Diana only had a fractured arm. He later on introduced cranial injury when there was none and did not mention the wound in the thorax! Why?   In fact, Diana scored 14 out of 15 on the Glasgow scale that showed that she had no brain injury. Diana was allowed to remain in the car in her cramped position, when she could easily have been taken out, for 37 minutes! Why?

It was this deliberate policy of the doctors on the scene that caused her to lose her pulse. She did not have a cardiac arrest as usually propagated.  It was because of her cramped position and injuries that blood circulation was being impeded.  Dr. Tom Treasure, a cardio-thoracic surgeon, told the inquest that Diana’s heart would never have actually stopped beating. She had minimal or zero pulse because of posture. “What she had . . . is called electromechanical dissociation – [meaning] that there is so little blood in circulation at that point that the heart could not fill. The heart was beating – electrical activity, normal beat, normal rhythm – but because it was completely empty, it had nothing to push into the circulation, she was pulse less. Having then sometime later, having got this difficult position in the car, laid flat, her own reflexes came into action, some fluid given, the heart has volume again, the pulse returns. ” A cardio-thoracic surgeon Alain Pavie told the inquest: “When your legs are up the blood goes to the heart and the brain. When you lay the legs down, part of the volume of blood is perfusing the legs . . . [Diana] was easily treated and easily stabilized.”

Further there are inexplicable oddities in the case. Two ambulances belonging to the Fire Brigade arrived at the scene with no doctors on board! There is always a doctor with the ambulance. It was later that the doctors arrived. These two doctors who arrived late on the scene were never questioned, either by the police or the inquest! Why? Some important individuals were never questioned. In particular, the mysterious role of Dr. Arnaud Derossi, working as base despatcher for SAMU, has been underplayed. He arrived at 12:50 and he was one who directed Dr. Lejay, at 1:20, half an hour later, that Diana be taken to Pitie Slapetriere. Morgan points out: “Both Lienhart and Derossi lied under oath at the inquest about Derossi’s role. Why?”

One of the most astonishing omissions in the information relayed to the SAMU base was Diana’s thoracic injury. This injury was very serious and the doctors on the ambulance knew about it. But the base was never informed about this. Base doctor Marc Lejay stated in his testimony that he was never informed about Diana’s thoracic injury. When Lejay was asked “How [was it] that you were never told about one of the most important findings?” he replied: “I have no explanation for that. The only thing I can tell you is that in the assessment I received at 1:19 [a.m.], the thorax was normal.” The accident occurred at 12;23 a.m., almost an hour earlier. And in the information conveyed to the base after one hour the thorax was normal! This is incredible and the only explanation for this omission can be that the doctors in the ambulance were under instruction to let Diana bleed to death and to preclude any chances of her survival. Because of this omission there would be no thoracic specialist present on the spot to receive the victim! To call a specialist after arrival of the ambulance would take some time and would lead to further delay in treatment, aggravating the condition of the princess further.

Another oddity about the case pertained to the handing over of the case to the Criminal Brigade. There is a police branch known at the Central Accident Bureau (BCA) which investigates accidents. However, Maud Coujard, deputy public prosecutor, a junior officer, was pressurized to hand over the case to the Criminal Brigade. Maud Coujard admitted that she “had no previous knowledge of Brigade Criminelle ever having investigated a car crash.” John Morgan points out that Commander Jean-Claude Mules had “never investigated a road accident” in his 23 years of service! Initially it was agreed that it would be a joint investigation by BCA and the Criminal Brigade, but Theiry Brunet of the BCA told the British inquest: “What you have to know is that … I have been out aside from this procedure and it was the Criminal Brigade which was involved … I was just in charge of drawing a map of the scene of the collision and everything was given and the rest was done by the Criminal Brigade.” It is also highly significant that when the BCA officers arrived at the scene, thirty minutes after the crash, “officers from the Brigade Criminelle were present.” Why was it that the Criminal Brigade was present at the scene well before the arrival of the BCA officers? It appears that a decision to involve the Criminal Brigade had been taken at some level without consulting the Public Prosecutor’s office? Why? An organization and an officer who had never investigated a car crash were made in charge of investigating a highly sensitive car crash! Why?

David Gardner writes that a short distance from the hospital the ambulance stopped for 10 minutes! And in that interval unidentified people were seen to board the ambulance! Who were they? Were they spooks assessing the situation? Or even aggravating her condition? It then took a mere one minute for the ambulance to reach the hospital! Does that look suspicious? Very suspicious indeed. And when it was known she has had one or more cardiac arrests on way to the hospital why was there no cardiac surgeon present when the ambulance arrived?  Only later, after a lapse of time, was a cardiac surgeon asked to come! There can be little doubt that there was a strategy of delay in action at every step. An old Ronald Reagan could be saved by prompt and proper medical help but a young Diana could not be saved because proper medical help was maximally delayed. Dr. Wolf Ullrich, Head of the EU Commission on Crime expressed his anger: “Diana could still be alive today, had it not been for the incompetence of the doctors. They simply let her bleed to death.” Was it mere incompetence?

The matter just did not end with her death. Her body was illegally embalmed. Why was her boy embalmed? And who ordered it? Noel Botham writes: “Whether these orders originated from the prince himself or from some nameless faceless member of the Establishment is not known. Either way they did not come from Diana’s next of kin, making the orders illegal under French law. . .” Professor Peter Vanezis of Glasgow University, a former London police pathologist stated: “Nobody should be embalmed before post mortem. There is no good reason why this should have been done in the case of the princess.” French law bans embalming if a post mortem has to be carried out for the simple reason that formaldehyde corrupts some toxicological tests. What was the urgency and need for embalming the princess that it had to be carried out illegally? The pressing reason is suspected to be to destroy any evidence of her pregnancy because it was suspected that she was expecting Dodi’s child.

Diana’s death was announced formally at 4;00 am. Jon King and John Beveridge point out that on the morning Diana died (August 31, 1997) the Early Edition of the Sunday Mirror carried a story which contained the following paragraph: “Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds – at a dinner party, during a country shoot and while on a visit to close friends in Germany. He’s been banging on his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather for William and Harry. Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue her relationship with the Fayed boy … now the royal family may have decided it is time to settle up.” [italics in the original copy]. For obvious reasons the story did not appear in the later edition. These authors also point out that BBC carries out dress rehearsals on the announcement of the deaths of royalty, Chris Broadhurst of The Independent reported on 13th July 1997 that on July 5, 1997, a dress rehearsal of the announcement of the Queen Mother’s death was carried out. He also reported that earlier the BBC had carried out a dress rehearsal of Diana’s death in a car accident! The Queen Mother was indeed old but Diana was around 36 when the rehearsal was carried out! Are all these things a mere coincidence?

The story that was propagated worldwide by the media was that the paparazzi and a dead drunk driver, Henri Paul, had caused the crash. This story was utterly false. Eric Petel had reported that when he arrived at the scene there were no paparazzi. When he insisted that there were no paparazzi when the car crashed, he was warned by the police not to talk to the media about it! His insistence on this point led to his arrest at the police station where he had turned up to report the matter personally! And the next morning the police chief referred to him as unreliable so that his story would have little credibility when he went to the press. Henri Paul was known not to be a heavy drinker and both body guards Kez and Trevor reported that he was absolutely sober. The CCTV cameras at the Ritz showed him to be sober – they showed him sitting down to sort out his shoe laces, then shift weight from one leg to the other and then rise gracefully.

The autopsy report had serious flaws. In fact, as noted by John Morgan: “A close analysis of Professor Lecomte’s autopsy of Henri Paul reveals she made at least 58 errors in her conduct and documentation. The police files reveal there were two lots of documentation for the one autopsy – each recording different samples taken and differing body measurements, weight and height. The evidence points to two bodies being in the room at the time of the autopsy – one was Henri Paul’s and the other was a person who had died in a fire with smoke inhalation. Samples were taken from both bodies, but kept separate. The other person’s samples were used for the BAC testing and years later Henri’s true samples were used for DNA testing. The DNA-tested samples were never BAC tested and the BAC-tested samples were never DNA tested.”

The police authorities claimed that all 27 cameras on the route of the crashed car were not functioning that night. This was a lie. A disgruntled police officer produced a very clear CCTV shot of the Mercedes S280 just before it entered the tunnel with all persons in the car clearly visible. Noel Botham, who saw the photograph, states that the police officer did not accept his offer of payment for the picture – he was just angry that Henri Paul had been targeted unfairly. A woman who had entered the tunnel 15 minutes earlier got a speeding ticket belying the police claims. It is thus clear that the police were lying and the media was spreading disinformation. Why would the police lie? It could only be if they had been told by more powerful authorities to do so. And the media is a mere propaganda organ of the Establishment. As Jon King and John Beveridge wrote, “one of the British Establishment’s major propaganda outlets, The Daily Telegraph” published a concocted story stating that the crashed Mercedes was driving at 121 mph. And the story was picked up worldwide.

It was in the year 2013 that the story of soldier N came to light. On August 19, 2013, the Guardian broke this story. It was in 2008 that Prince William visited the unit of soldier N. And on that day soldier N told his wife that the SAS had been involved in the assassination of Princess Diana. There was no reason for him to lie to his wife on that day. According to the Guardian, a letter written some time in 2011, to his commanding officer, the mother in law of soldier N complained that he had been behaving erratically and that she was worried about the safety of her daughter.  In this letter, the involvement of the SAS revealed by soldier N to his wife, in Diana’s assassination was mentioned. His erratic behavior in 2011 made him an “unreliable witness.” But in 2008, when he made this revelation, his behavior was normal.

Soldier N also revealed to his wife the existence of a group known as “The Increment” comprising of officers of SAS and SBS that carried our murderous operations on behalf of MI6. That SAS was used by MI6 for killing people had already been revealed by Richard Tomlinson, ex MI6 agent. John Morgan has described in detail how, during the inquest, the MI6 officials were extremely nervous and evasive when asked about The Increment.

David Gardner writes that soldier N’s wife was interviewed by a detective, Philip Easton, a Detective Chief Inspector of the Scotland Yard, and gave him a “compelling account” of what she had been told. Astonishingly, she was offered an amount of 500 pounds in an envelope by an officer as hush money! Why? Gardner quotes her: “They wanted me to keep quiet about Diana and SAS operations but I couldn’t stay silent about something so serious. The payment was deeply suspicious and made me uncomfortable. The fact that they stayed silent about Diana compounded my belief that my ex-husband had told me the truth in 2008 when he talked about an SAS officer directing a beam of light into Princess Diana’s chauffer …”  In October 2013 she had to go into hiding as friends of soldier N warned him that her life was in danger. Gardner quotes her: “The threatening and sinister way in which the SAS dealt with me made what my husband had said about the regiment’s role in Diana’s death all the more believable.”

Neil Botham points out that the US government archives in Washington hold top secret files on Diana. These top secret files, comprising documents from the CIA, FBI and NSA consist of a “staggering 1,190 pages.” Botham states that he is possession of a letter from John Grubbe, Deputy Director of Policy at the NSA “which states that 124 NSA originated and controlled pages on Princess Diana are classified TOP SECRET ‘because their disclosure reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” These is very strong language. What is the top-secret NSA files on Diana could “exceptionally grave damage” to US national security? Evidence of US participation the assassination of Princess Diana? Very likely. For if Diana was simply killed in an accident why should the US government be so reluctant to release these documents. Botham points out that when after Diana’s death, US newspaper editors called for the release of the files on Diana maintained by the security agencies, “the State Department decreed that 1,190 pages of documents must remain locked away indefinitely.” This is unbelievable.

Similarly, MI6 has resisted all attempts at opening their files in Diana to the public. While the Us government agencies had admitted to having files on Diana, the MI6 has never admitted that it had any files on Diana. Is this to be believed? Why is it that while the NSA has well over a thousand pages of documents on Diana MI6 has none? In fact, MI6 has also resisted attempts to bring the version of those who hold it culpable, to the public at large. The example of Richard Tomlinson, who has consistently argued that the secret to Diana’s assassination must be in the files of MI6, is instructive. Firstly, MI6 tried its best to prevent Tomlinson from testifying before judge Stephan in France. He was arrested in Paris without any grounds and subjected to violence on July 31, 1997. He was released after 38 hours of interrogation, his laptop and his Psion organizer were confiscated and illegally handed over to MI6. After he had submitted his testimony he was to appear in Australia on Channel Nine. While he boarded the plane from Auckland to get to Sydney on August 7, 1997, he was offloaded and when he returned to his hotel room, the room was raided by the New Zealand SIS and his computer equipment that the French had failed to take away was confiscated. In another incident when he arrived on JFK on August 30, 1997, he was offloaded by the immigration officials, “photographed, finger printed, manacled by my ankle to a chair for seven hours, served with deportation papers, and the returned on the next available plane to Geneva. … The US immigration officers who were openly sympathetic to my situation and apologized for treating me so badly, openly admitted they were under instructions from the CIA.”

The foregoing indicates that MI6 and the CIA wanted to suppress the propagation, on the media, of the view of an ex-MI6 agent, that Diana’s death was not an accident but an assassination. Why would they do so if they were not a party to such a sordid murder? In fact, the British inquest concluded that the crash was caused by “unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes.” The “following vehicles” were not identified by the inquest. John Morgan notes that worldwide media reports altered the words “following vehicles” to read ‘paparazzi’! The control of narrative and violence against those who wished to expose the conspiracy effectively, has played a key role in suppressing informed discussion of the assassination on the media. But those, who have looked at the evidence in detail, have little doubt that Princess Diana was assassinated in a joint MI6-CIA operation. John Morgan has summed it up by stating that the “[C]rash was not an accident. It was instead a staged operation carried out by some of the world’s leading intelligence agencies at the behest of their governments and Britain’s royal family.”