Princess Diana articles by Seamus

[Seamus Coogan]

These trashy articles, bereft of even the most simple manifestations of deep politics-informed reasoning and insight, seem designed to deflect attention from the investigation of the "how" of Diana's death and instead shift our focus to the apparently unseemly life, times, and character of Mohammed Al-Fayed.

Mr. Al-Fayed, we are told over and over and over again, is a racist, a cad, an insensitive bigot.

Which tells us, exactly, about how Diana, Mr. Al-Fayed's son, and their driver were killed?

Hey hold on CD. How does Al Fayed's foot and mouth musings of racist royals in a film about Diana Spencers murder 'tells us what exactly' about how anyone was killed? You have amused me with countless cleverly worded diatribes against individuals like Bob Morrow and others. Do they do anything for the JFK case? Further are my comments about Al Fayed, as venomous as the ones we have used against many a mutual foe here? CD, the Royals racism is a central tennant of Keith Allens film. If you had read the first part CD, not only that my previous reply you'd see where I am coming from. If you read part two I also discussed issues of the case presented in Allens documentary. In fact I stated along the lines of 'there's some good food for thought or at least a debate'. A debate I appreiciate you have many a valid point on, further it's also a topic you undoubtedly have more interest and knowledge in than myself. I don't agree or disagree with you, I am sure the collective wits of yourself, Magda and Jan can come up with something better than or in addition too Allens dabblings. Combined with Guyatt, you guys are the best chance of there actually being a respectable counter to it all I can see anywhere. What an asshole I am for saying that.

And it gets worse. The author(s) of this disjointed little smear titillate(s) us with news that, in the next installment, "we will check out Spencer's inconsistent musings about her personal security." Which will tell us, exactly, about how "Spencer" was killed?

"Spencer"???

What else do I call her big guy? I call her Diana occassionally. Queen of Hearts and Peoples Princess is a bit frothy for me mate. I've called John F Kennedy, 'Kennedy' before.

And my oh my, might the use of the word "we" to reference the author(s) of these articles be inadvertently revealing?

Well 'we' in my use of it was the interested reader. Hell, maybe I should have said just that. The next part I think you will also dislike intensely CD. In it I discuss Spencer/Diana and her claims and fears for her security. Now she was once quoted that the same people that killed Versace would come and kill her. Okay cool. But apparently she was in tears when she found out she had been condemned by members of the government for her land mine work. Now there's something of a disconnect here. She expressed fears for her safety, but never followed up with her own security checks in her own vehicles and so on. But these fears have been taken on as if she was deeply afraid of the Royal Family. Her actions in all reality indicate she wasn't at all, or at least not all of the time. Now none of this takes away from the fact that there could have been dark forces enveloping her. But it clearly indicates that she was hardly of the JFK, MLK, X, RFK or even Karen Silkwood variety that genuinely viewed themselves as having a date with destiny. Which makes it all the more interesting that you make the below comment.

All of this is reminiscent of the posthumous assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. Wittingly or not, the author(s) would advise us, "Relax, the victims aren't worthy of our respect, so there's no good reason to inquire after the circumstances of their deaths."

Your words not mine. But it is true I have never shied away from saying I never found Spencer interesting at all, in fact I found her jaunts replacing real news and current events and a number of really important conspiracy issues a very real bore. Numerous posts on DPF as you should know CD, take the crap out of trivial news and stories. This trivialisation that she was part of has seeped into her death. This is IMO is summed up by Al Fayed. He's trivialising the case for conspiracy not me. One thing I think I deleted from the piece is that for a BRIEF time fairly soon after she died, I did make an attempt to at least look into the case. While my natural antipathy towards Spencer was a likely barrier, what turned me off the conspiracy angles, not to mention the Diana crowd straight away (until encountering DPF) was that I mistakenly anticipated there would have been a lot of discussion and articles on the web about her death being linked to landmines. I was stunned, gob smacked in fact, that there was nothing about this critical debate at all damn well anywhere. It was all the pregnancy and marriage garbage.

Further that, where was Al Fayed discussing landmines then? He never did and he decided to go off into his land of the Lala's. In saying that I believe Al Fayed was cleverly manipulated by the way and also compromised by his own past in the arms industry. Look if Al Fayed from day one had been coming out with good rational stuff like yourself, Jan and Magda and Guyatt have I wouldn't be writing this piece. My main spur for this article was precisely Spencer being put on the same pedastool as the above guys. I don't think she is worthy of it IMO and I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Because my main fear CD, however rational or not. Is if we put Spencer up there, with all of this tawdry tabloidised crap spouted by Al Fayed and others, not real research into credible sources by the likes of you guys here. Then by proxy I feel we legitimise any hack advocating the bollocks scenarios implicating Kennedy's death because of his supposed love triangle with Judyth Exner and Giancana/RFK with Monroe and all sorts of other rubbish Mary Meyer and all kinds of crap.

And it gets worse.

The author(s)' disparagement of assassination investigators prompts his/her/their use of the following rhetorical gems:<br>

"conspiravangelists"

"conspirahypocrite"

"the gaping maw that is the conspiracy-hungry United States"

Sound familiar?

CD, sadly DPF and it's good researchers here are in comparatively small numbers. You of course know this. I've used the above terms not only in articles at TSW but in CTKA articles and even here. I don't get why all of a sudden you take offence to them now. Well I do, you obviously have some deep feelings for the case. Yet, I have not criticised your research nor Jan's or Magda's analysis. You have also been cynical of the Alex Jones and David Icke crowds. That's effectively what I am discussing with the 'gaping maw' angle. And it really is a gaping maw as you know. I am bitterly sorry if I don't see you and DPF as rabid conspiracists and nut jobs who swallow any old crap and won't be cueing up with bowls, like the rest.

These half-witted, ham-fisted attacks, clearly intended to marginalize and demonize conspiracy research and researchers, are all TOO familiar to those of us who seek truth and justice for John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and, yes, Diana Spencer.

CD let me figure this one out, just because I am neutral on Spencers death and dislike Al Fayed's angles on the controversy, that I am somehow offending the memory of the other guys, is beyond me. CD I firmly believe as do you that high level conspiracies were enacted upon JFK, X, MLK and RFK by agencies of the US government and it's cronies in big business. Just because I don't believe Al Fayeds mad ramblings, does not mean I don't think there is not any chance of something funny happening with Miss Spencer. Just because I criticised John Hankey doesn't make me a lone nut, nor does criticising Jim Fetzer make me anti 9/11. What it does to the public at large is simply say I don't have anything to do with that wash. Again CD this is no different from you have done with these types of guys as well.

Who in God's name is responsible for these travesties? Moldea? Posner? Russo? Bugliosi?

"Colby"???

CD, you will note that in my reply to Mr Gregory, I have asked him to have a debate with yourself, Jan or Magda. I write...

Martin cheers for the compliment. I have to add I am 50/50 on
there being an assassination or not. Thanks to some gun researchers at
DPF Jan, Charles and Magda I am definitely more open to the idea of
there being one. These guys make Al Fayed look stupid. Further that
Diana is not their lives. She is merely one topic of interest they have
looked at and researched. They are not your average Diana loons by any
stretch. I think you would have some pretty worthy combatants there. In
fact could I arrange a debate with you and one of their number? I am
sure Ryan would agree this would make a nice addendum to the end of this
piece.

Now, I doubt that Russo, Bugliosi, Moldea, Colby or Posner would challenge Gregory to discuss the case with the likes of yourself. If Keith Allen can ask some pertinant questions of Gregory, I certainly know yourself, Magda, Guyatt and Jan are more than capable of giving Mr Gregory a very good run for his money. Maybe to good. If Gregory does not accept the chance of debate with you guys or a designated hitter from here. I shall definitely make mention of it in the article. For him not to front up would be a credibility fail. Indeed, Gregory in praising the piece may like you have jumped the gun a little early in criticising it. I have a feeling that despite how polite he was to me and how ever much the debate is moderated, he probably won't. Why because you guys are not easy targets like Al Fayed is. I also add I see Fetzer, Cinque, Hankey, Jones and Icke as just as bad as Moldea, Posner, Russo, Bugliosi, and Colby. I also see Al Fayed and Gregory as being the flip side of the same coin. What I think I have made a mistake on may have been the introduction to my piece. It seems as if I was inadvertantly challenging you. Or somehow tying you in to some of the negative conspiracy connotations. That I can heartily say was never my intention.

[Magda Hassan]

Princess Diana Part IV Versace Murder Had Political Motive

Apparently, Diana thought that Gianni Versace was important enough to become the victim of a political conspiracy. She also believed that she was being targeted by the same people that went after Versace (1).
If it was true that she had those beliefs, then it shows not only a high level of shallowness, but also a paranoia that would socially cripple just about anyone.
Yet, as I've written in my earlier articles on Diana, the opposite was true. While it is well known that Spencer frequently expressed fears for her security, it is utterly ignored by Diana conspiracy theorists that she also frequently shunned security concerns.
In 2004, a video tape containing Diana discussing her affair with Barry Mannakee was unearthed. The tryst occurred in between the period of 1985-87. The tape, made in 1992, revealed Spencer's suspicions that Mannakee had been murdered in 1987.
However, if one reads this link, the story does not make for a convincing murder scenario due to the elaborate nature of the conspiracy required. In reality folks, all they needed to silence him would have been poisoning (2) or a faked suicide attempt (3).
Spencer's one time lothario James Hewitt, received threats that he might end up like Mannakee. However, I struggle with Hewitt. He had a book to sell. Also, as it turns out, all of Spencer's lovers while she was with Charles were alive and kicking at the time of the Paget report.
These facts make the "honour killing" angles rather weak (4).

Was Princess Diana Really in Fear?

During his two year liaison with Diana, Khan never once mentioned her having any fears of the Royal family, nor her speaking out of turn about them.
Indeed, the person most opposed to any marriage with a Muslim appeared to be Spencer's mother. There are a number of witnesses Imran Khan, Jemima Khan and Paul Burrell (a dubious individual, who is of interest in the case) who have discussed Diana's enquiries into marrying into the Islamic religion.
Yet, Hasnat Khan has stressed that in no way would he have enforced Diana to marry into it. Further that, he apparently had the goodwill of Prince Charles in his endeavours.
In the Paget Report (pages 97-100), Lord Mischon, her divorce lawyer with Charles, documented her concerns in 1995. On the 20th of October 2003 Paul Burrell, her butler, went public in the Daily Mirror with a letter from Diana outlining these concerns via a note written in October 1993 in which she believed Charles was planning a brake failure in her car.
For arguments sake, I will say it is authentic. The problem is that on page 97 of the Paget Report it is remarkably clear that Mischon never really thought she was in danger. Likewise, Burrell also believed Spencer's claims for her life were typically melodramatic.
With regard to the above, I ask if she was so fearful of sabotage, why did she not wear her seatbelt in the car that fateful night?
She never wore her seatbelt.
In fact, judging by her one time security chief, Ken Wharfe, it appears Spencer was not an ardent seat belt wearer as many like to claim. Indeed, she had to be reminded to wear them often (5). Further, she was clearly not wearing her seatbelt that night, as seen in many photos on the night of the accident (6).

"While under my protection, whenever we got in the car she would always say, I suppose you want me to have this bloody seatbelt on'. She needed someone to tell her in the car that night, Ma'am, do your belt up'. But none of the protection officers would in the Fayed system; instructions to back-seat passengers would not be delivered for fear of dismissal."

Princess Diana Never Increased Security

Mischon thus made salient points. Why are there no records of her ever checking her own cars for discrepancies? One has to ask why, if she had any concerns, she never increased her own security?

More here: http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/...al-motive/

[Magda Hassan]

Princess Diana Part V Myths of Marriage and Pregnancy

This part of the essay concerns Al Fayed's allegations following his media campaign that he and his pals had helped cook up on the French Riviera. It is in two parts. A) Discusses the marriage myths. B) Involves itself with allegations of pregnancy, but before I begin I have something of a treatise concerning Martyn Gregory.
In the last four installments, my articles have criticised Muhammed Al Fayed. I also said in Part II that one cannot blame Gregory for focusing on him.
Nonetheless, Gregory for all his salient points concerning the man is guilty of not examining Al Fayed nor the Diana controversy in a broader focus.
When I discussed David Icke, I also discussed how conspiracy arguments are framed within the parameters of a dominant paradigm. That being, sceptics like Michael Barkun and Daniel Pipes target conspirahypocrites like Icke and Alex Jones to prove their thesis, which are based on extreme conspirahypocrite cases.
Martyn Gregory, a man I believe who is much smarter than both Barkun and Pipes combined, has done much the same thing by ignoringalternative views from more legitimate sources and real researchers.
One of his central targets has been Al Fayed's claims of an imminent marriage and pregnancy to Spencer.
If Gregory really wanted to take Al Fayed to task, why has he not discussed the little known fact that Al Fayed's spin-doctoring in the media prior to the events on August 31st 1997 could well have provided potential plotters with an itch to scratch?
Why didn't Gregory criticise Al Fayed for making up stories about Spencer's pregnancy and conjuring up a convenient false sponsor, like the Royal Family for the crime?
Regardless of what was floating around in Diana Spencer's head about the Royals, and despite the hype that Al Fayed has since stoked, if there was a conspiracy, there may well have been dark clouds gathering around Spencer and Al Fayed from another quarter.
Namely, those in the conservative elite circles of Britain, with contacts in intelligence and munitions who had far more reach and organisational nous than the much vaunted Royal family would ever have.

Myths Created About Diana

Regardless of Gregory's positioning however, Al Fayed has handed him some fantastic opportunities. The statement below on Al Fayed's website really has to be seen to be believed (1).
Throughout the seven weeks duration of their love affair, Dodi and Diana were with each other almost every minute.
While Dodi and Spencer had known each other off and on for years, according to pages 20-25 of the Paget Report, the couple's relationship began on the 14th of July 1997 and ended on the 31st of August that year.
They had known each other for 47 days.
Apparently, their schedules allowed them to have seen each other on a possible 35 days. As it stands, they were together for 23 of them. This ishardly time for a mature couple to bond and make plans.

More here: http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/...-marriage/

[Magda Hassan]

Princess Diana Part VI Soft Touch Running Interference

According to Allen's arch nemesis, Gregory, by 2004, Al Fayed had spent some 5 million pounds on all manner of media and documentaries, discussing his version of Princess Diana's story.
Now, if this number is true, Al Fayed's outlay in keeping Diana's legacy alive would be running into the tens of millions today. As we have seen earlier in this series, Al Fayed enjoyed the patronage of influential figures like Max Clifford (before the two had a falling out over comments made about Al Fayed's inherent lying in his biography), (1) Piers Morgan, and a one Richard Desmond.
Desmond, also good friends with Clifford and Morgan, appears to be one of the reasons why Spencer's death still receives an inordinate amount of print in the tabloids, particularly in the Daily Express and a number of women's magazines that Desmond owns (OK! Magazine that international bastion of intellectual discourse) is but one of them.
Another powerful, yet largely unseen backer in his crusade has been the LaRouche organisation. These fellows are considered the most militant, affluent, and organised of all the conspiracy theorist groups. Indeed, Lyndon La Rouche himself has boasted about his numerous contacts with all manner of agencies (just before he turned on them). (2)
While his organisation did well with Webster Tarpley's "Unauthorised Biography of George Bush", they do uncover some interesting things occasionally. However, I advise being careful with organizations like this, and instead finding alternatives with better sources. These people are conspirahypocrites and conspiravangelists of the highest order. (3)
Apparently, the Queen is the witting head of an international drug trafficking cartel. Additionally, her cousin, Prince Edward the Duke of Kent, killed Vatican Banker Roberto Calve and Britain's Lord Reese Mogg, and was behind the Oklahoma bombing. (4)

Media Ignored the Real Conspiracies

Thus, we return to Allen's vehicle "Unlawful Killing", which is now falsely being touted around the Internet, no doubt aided by Desmond and La Rouche, as being "banned in Britain".

More here: http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/...more-16588

[Charles Drago]

Fuck Gregory.

Fuck Fayed.

Diana was murdered.

Answer the "how" question first.

Stay disciplined.

The "who" and "why" will come into focus.

In re the "how": security stripping, black-and-white cars as doppelganger cognitive dissonance-inducing tools, first responders to control the scene pre- paparazzi, tunnel and traffic cameras off-line to eliminate need for Z-film and other photo record challenges ...

Last (for now) but not least, witness the sacred v. the profane.

The bells are ringing ...

[Seamus Coogan]

Fuck Gregory.

Fuck Fayed.

Diana was murdered.

Answer the "how" question first.

Stay disciplined.

The "who" and "why" will come into focus.

In re the "how": security stripping, black-and-white cars as doppelganger cognitive dissonance-inducing tools, first responders to control the scene pre- paparazzi, tunnel and traffic cameras off-line to eliminate need for Z-film and other photo record challenges ...

Last (for now) but not least, witness the sacred v. the profane.

The bells are ringing ...

CD I do get there okay.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Seamus - I don't see any improvement in the quality of your analysis as further parts of this article appear.

I shall only address one point for now: your use of the phrase "conspirahypocrite".

As well as being aesthetically ugly, it plays into the narrative officially sanctioned by the ruling elites.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is itself a pysop.

"Conspiracy theory" is used by the powerful to declare certain subjects or analyses out of bounds, off limits, verboten.

Here is a fine example of the form, British PM Tony Blair in the House of Commons during the buildup to the war on Iraq:

Mr. Dennis Skinner(Bolsover)
When the Prime Minister meets the American President at the end of the month, will he tell George Bush that there is almost certainly a majority of the British people against the idea of a war with Iraq? Will he tell him that a lot of the British people are against the war because they can see that it is all about America getting its hands on the oil supplies in the middle east? Will he also tell him that we are not prepared to fight a war based on the fact that this vain American President is concerned more about finishing the job that his father failed to complete 12 years ago?


The Prime Minister
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I am afraid I cannot agree with him. Let me first deal with the conspiracy theory that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever, if oil were the issue, that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam, who, I am sure, would be delighted to give us access to as much oil as we wanted if he could carry on building weapons of mass destruction. The very reason why we are taking the action that we are taking is nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward. It is to do with one very simple fact: the United Nations has laid downindeed, it has been laying down for 10 yearsthat Saddam Hussein has to disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction and that he poses a threat because he used those weapons, and I believe that we have to make sure that the will of the United Nations is upheld.

House of Commons, January 15, 2003.

I vividly remember Blair answering questions from journalists at PM's press call during the same period when oil and the quality of the intelligence were being discussed, and saying that responsible news outlets shouldn't be spending time on "conspiracy theories".

Of course, we now know that the intelligence was entirely false, and was cooked up to justify a war that had no public support and no political, military or security justification.

The phrase and framework of "conspiracy theory" is a psyop designed to delegitimize deep political research and any discourse which challenges the ruling elite's version of reality.

Phrases such as "conspirahypocrite" play into the aims of this psyop.

In short, they provide succour to the enemy.

[Charles Drago]

The phrase and framework of "conspiracy theory" is a psyop designed to delegitimize deep political research and any discourse which challenges the ruling elite's version of reality.

Phrases such as "conspirahypocrite" play into the aims of this psyop.

In short, they provide succour to the enemy.

Seamus,

I'll stipulate that your heart is in the right place; I believe that you are on the side of the angels, that you do your best to be a warrior for truth and justice.

But I am obliged by my commitments to discover deep political truth and, as a consequence, attain justice for JFK and all other victims -- past, present, and future -- of our enemy to speak to you bluntly.

Those who praise your skills as an analyst of deep political phenomena are not doing you any favors. That you would even consider including such a term as "conspirahypocrite" in one of your published pieces without contextualizing it as Jan does above is enough to get you drummed out of Deep Politics 101.

Another basic truth of which you seem wholly ignorant, concisely expressed by Jan elsewhere:

"[T]he bigger issue is [your] tendency to dismiss an entire area of legitimate deep political research because a particular individual has made poorly evidenced claims."

This is so basic an error on your part that it effectively disqualifies your work from serious consideration -- especially in light of the effort it takes to penetrate your prose perorations.

I like you, Seamus. I think that you're your own worst enemy. You're trying to run before you can walk.

Within your work I detect the potential for great and lasting contributions to our shared causes. But your Diana pieces, among others, are poorly reasoned, undisciplined, naive messes -- written so poorly, so opaquely, that they beggar even my ability to discern subtext and meaning.

Which is OK, because in the final analysis there is no subtext or meaning to discern.

And let me be even more blunt: Your Diana pieces are so supportive of the enemy's agenda that already they may have earned you a star on the CIA's wall.

To illustrate this point, let me reiterate what I wrote previously on this thread regarding your Diana piece -- at a point in time, by the way, when I had no idea that you were the author:


The author(s)' disparagement of assassination investigators prompts his/her/their use of the following rhetorical gems:

"conspiravangelists"

"conspirahypocrite"

"the gaping maw that is the conspiracy-hungry United States"

Sound familiar?

These half-witted, ham-fisted attacks, clearly intended to marginalize and demonize conspiracy research and researchers, are all TOO familiar to those of us who seek truth and justice for John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and, yes, Diana Spencer.

Who in God's name is responsible for these travesties? Moldea? Posner? Russo? Bugliosi?

"Colby"???


As your comrade-in-arms, I implore you to look deeply into yourself. Clear your mind. Detox. Get over the initial anger and hurt you may be experiencing right about now. Think about what Jan and I are writing to you. Think.

Don't just read James Douglass and George Michael Evica. STUDY James Douglass and George Michael Evica. Analyze their skills as essayists, as thinkers, and as deep political analysts. Do your best to discern the uber-significant distinctions between their product and your own.

And by all that is holy DO NOT GIVE UP!

Seamus, you are a work in progress. My criticisms of you are harsh because I see your potential and I want to do all I can to help you realize it.

Check your ego at the door. Be humble.

Grow.

[Keith Millea]

Where does this piece of the puzzle fit?

Kevin Costner was going to give Diana the lead role in "The Bodyguard II".

http://www.aol.com/video/costners-prince...d%3D151404

:director:

[Magda Hassan]

Princess Diana Death Part VIII Suspicious Evidence

We leave behind much of the Al Fayed and Gregory stew now, and start focusing, slowly but surely, on a possible murder scenario that attempts to be independent of both.
Did I just say possible murder scenario? Well yes I did.
Despite all of the rubbish cooked up by this horrific duo and their pals, there is a chance in some people's opinion that something may well have happened. It is those more rational views and opinions that, as I said at the start, have never really been given a fair shake.
Do I have direct evidence of an assassination no I don't. However, there are some shoddy denials and interesting circumstances, coincidences and unanswered questions that may or may not make an assassination attempt plausible.
The first step in doing this is to briefly discuss the three most prominent British intelligence whistle blowers who have commented on the Diana case.
British intelligence figures like Annie Machon and David Shayler of MI5, and controversial New Zealand born Brit, Richard Tomlinson of MI6 have claimed that their respective agencies were likely involved in plots to kill Spencer.
In my experiences, not to mention those of more experienced researchers in the Diana field like Drago, Hassan, and Klimkowsy, just because someone says they are ex-agency or have intelligence "contacts" does not mean they know any more about a case than you or I. So do not be fooled by their alleged credentials.
Without authenticated and verifiable documentation, their insight and information is often as limited and misinformed as anyone else's. They could very well even be intelligence plants. In this regard, let us start with Miss Annie Machon. Machon is perhaps the weakest link of the three.

Annie Machon

Machon, for a time, became one of the more prominent ex-intelligence agents advocating various Diana theories. She, like Tomlinson and Peter Wright (Spycatcher), has often discussed the curious cross-pollination of Britain's establishment with the intelligence services.
This sort of thing is nothing new. The intelligence services of the United States, for example, have long had close contact with corporate America (1). Speaking in Chicago at the 2006 "9/11 Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our Future" conference, Machon stated that she and her partner David Shayler had prevented Al Fayed from making a fool of himself with fake CIA documents (which supposedly implicated MI5, Prince Phillip, and the Queen).
What is interesting is that the conversations that eventually took place between the forger, Oswald LeWinter, and John McNamara, Al Fayed's head of security, ended in a sting operation to arrest LeWinter. LeWinter was offering Al Fayed's aid with the document for some 15-20 million pounds.
While Machon discussed LeWinter's bizarre ties to intelligence as a disinformation figure, she got it wrong when she called LeWinter an MI6 agent. I have no idea how on earth she came up with this assumption. All evidence indicates that LeWinter has claimed he is CIA.
Oddly, neither Machon nor Allen everdiscussed the fact that in the sting, Al Fayed's intermediary contacted the CIA, FBI and the Austrian authorities. LeWinter (a man worthy of an article at TSW himself), was arrested, charged and jailed. The big irony here is that Al Fayed worked with the very CIA that he has invariably accused of aiding and/or keeping information on the murder of his son. He has claimed also claimed that the CIA may very well have used LeWinter unwittingly or not to dupe Al Fayed, or waste his time. (2)
The final act of this bizarre story is that Machon seems to have since distanced herself from Al Fayed. Maybe she realised that while LeWinter may have been setting up Al Fayed as a straw candidate', it didn't stop Al Fayed from going along with the accusations implicating Prince Phillip and, at times even the Queen.
This quite clearly shows that even after his staff had proven LeWinter's tale false, Al Fayed was still unwilling to part with his old theories, or at least modify them.
Machon for all her purported nous, seemed to support the idea of Spencer's pregnancy to Fayed (an utterly marginal call at best). Not only that, but she also came out in support of the dubious idea that her death was because of her getting involved in the Palestinian issue. However, there is very little evidence of this, bar comments made by author Nicholas Davies.
Davies' source was apparently an unnamed MI5' agent. Machon seems sincere, but the fact that she could flat out make such huge errors of judgement in front of a paying audience proves that ex-spooks are just as fallible to ill judgement and disinformation as anyone else.

David Shayler and Richard Tomlinson

David Shayler was Annie Machon's offsider at MI5, and eventually became her lover. Shayler's claim to fame was that he went public with his knowledge of MI6 plans to assassinate Ghadafi, who was incidentally also a big target for British Weapons sales.
Shayler, who is on record discussing the unaccountable gung ho' attitude of MI6, also believed that Spencer herself had been murdered by that very agency via car tampering. Sadly for Shayler, unlike Machon, the exertions of his time spent out in the cold and then the public eye seem to have traumatised him deeply.
He now advocates that no planes flew into the World Trade Centre, and calls himself Dolores' (3). Despite all of his problems, Shayler has had corroboration for MI6 running roughshod, and he also has some form of corroboration for the car plot scenario. These come in a roundabout fashion from Richard Tomlinson.
Of the three agents discussed in this essay, it appears that Richard Tomlinson is the most credible.

His comments regarding Diana's friend Rosa Monckton's familial connections to MI6 led to her to admit the connection during the Paget hearings. It is doubtful that had he not pressed this issue, the question would never have been asked.
As said earlier, while Monckton may well be credible on the pregnancy issue, and the likelihood of her reporting back on Spencer's movements to MI6 are very high. Her becoming friends with Spencer in 1992 (at the time she split from Charles) is often viewed with suspicion.
Tomlinson's unorthodox accuracy within his allegations has been overlooked by people like Gregory. Instead, Gregory chose to ignore Monckton's connections (and the fact that he had used her frequently in his books and documentaries) to score Tomlinson on the car issue.
Tomlinson stated that he saw an MI6 memo in which they had planned a car crash using a bright flash in a tunnel to kill Slobodan Milosevic in a similar fashion to the Diana accident.

Richard Tomlinson

Tomlinson admitted that his memory had been sparked when he saw the allegations presented in ITV's "Diana: The Secrets of the Crash" in June of 1998.
The show's central premise discussed the possibility that Spencer's driver, Henri Paul, was incapacitated by a blinding flash from a high-powered bulb via hit men disguised as paparazzi. While Gregory skewered the show's star, French con man Paul Levistre, who claimed that the suspiciously bright flash had blinded Paul, causing a collision some years before (4).
The Paget Report uncovered an American by the name of Brian Anderson, who had also seen a blinding flash of light in the very tunnel (5).
After attacking Tomlinson for this, Gregory found more time to discredit Tomlinson (or at least attempt to) over the car tampering scenario. A memo detailing a plot on a Serbian leader (not Milosevic) was later unearthed, and during the Paget hearings Tomlinson agreed that this was probably the one he had seen.
While Gregory rejoiced in pointing out that the scenario was quite unlike what Tomlinson had described, he ignored the aforementioned fact that David Shayler had long discussed MI6 plots to assassinate Ghadafi of Libya, not to mention the fact that Tomlinson, and now the public, were privy to a document confirming that MI6 had indeed plotted such murders using such tactics.
Regardless of the media sideshow, this is very important information which makes something of a mockery of Richard Dearlove's comments that MI6 had not killed anybody in his 40 years. They had certainly at least planned to do just that.
Tomlinson, is thus in an interesting situation. Even if incorrect in some recollections, his allegations invariably opened up more important issues that Gregory could only diffuse with mockery or by ignoring their implications.
A classic case of this has been Gregory's haranguing of Tomlinson for admitting in the Paget Report that he had no evidence of an MI6 plot. The problem here for Allen is that Tomlinson is hardly in denial about anything. He has always been very public about his lack of evidence against MI6 in the Spencer case.
Yet, it is Tomlinson's interesting claims concerning Diana and Dodi's driver Henri Paul that night, which leads us even further into the weird world of the Diana case.

References & Image Credits:
(1) NY Times
(2) Independent
(3) Daily Mail
(4) Guardian Lies
(5) Independent
(6) [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog+media/national-newspapers"]Guardian
[/URL]http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/04/...-evidence/[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog+media/national-newspapers"]
[/URL]