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 the Britain’s royal family.”
