Princess Diana articles by Seamus

[Seamus Coogan]

Some eyewitnesses describe a black MB and a white FU.

Some eyewitnesses describe a white MB and a black FU.

Ah yes I'm tapping that vein just now. Since I am tight for space what I'll do is reach a compromise. We all confuse stuff in particularly with something as swift as moving vehicles. White or black. What interests me is the reports of a motor cycle and a car leaving!!!! Bar one or two slip ups John Morgan for myself is the money. I like his lack of bullshit, no theories, he states both cases and then presents and argument. Slanted for sure, but it's of a standard and realism that leaves the other Diana crowd looking like amateur's. If he hadn't bought into that pregnancy shite! Until ya'll get publishing this bloke really is the standard. Shame he had to publish in Nexus magazine but hey so have a few good un's!

[Dawn Meredith]

Some eyewitnesses describe a black MB and a white FU.

Some eyewitnesses describe a white MB and a black FU.

Ah yes I'm tapping that vein just now. Since I am tight for space what I'll do is reach a compromise. We all confuse stuff in particularly with something as swift as moving vehicles. White or black. What interests me is the reports of a motor cycle and a car leaving!!!! Bar one or two slip ups John Morgan for myself is the money. I like his lack of bullshit, no theories, he states both cases and then presents and argument. Slanted for sure, but it's of a standard and realism that leaves the other Diana crowd looking like amateur's. If he hadn't bought into that pregnancy shite! Until ya'll get publishing this bloke really is the standard. Shame he had to publish in Nexus magazine but hey so have a few good un's!

Seamus: I attempted to read this article after reading all the posts on this thread, but the lack of logic (and time- it is a work day after all) stopped me short. No one is comparing Diana with JFK. Except that both were murdered and said murders covered up by the powers that be. If you had so little interest in the subject matter why did you take the time to write what appears to be a long article about it?

I did not ever realize that Jan, CD and Magda were all "David Guyatt influenced". Interesting. David would no doubt find that amusing. You charge that although she expreessed concerns about her safety she took no precautions. Getting past the fact of victim blaming, so unfair, I ask you just what exactly does one do when he or she believes his/her life is in danger? What could she have done differently on that terrible evening?

I promise to go back and finish the piece...with the hope that it gets better. And like CD said above: keep at it. That you care enough to investigate and write about these matters is a good thing.

Dawn

[Seamus Coogan]

Seamus: I attempted to read this article after reading all the posts on this thread, but the lack of logic (and time- it is a work day after all) stopped me short. No one is comparing Diana with JFK. Except that both were murdered and said murders covered up by the powers that be. If you had so little interest in the subject matter why did you take the time to write what appears to be a long article about it?

While I say the following in very good heart Dawn, after my experiences with you're rather 'illogical' argument surrounding John Hankey, you may forgive me for being a little wary of replying to any questions you ask of myself. I hope you understand that your 'lack of logic' was not exactly encouraging the first time around lol. In your reply to this post, I also anticipate you will ask/demand that I show you a link and or evidence for some of my comments herein. I am rather sick of doing this for people, as I usually quote from my own works already being discussed. Hence, while I am on that topic, a lot of what I discuss herein is actually in up and coming installments of my work. Not to mention the installments, you haven't yet read!!!! All of these of course have the relevant references as do all of my online essays at Top Secret Writers and at CTKA. While it is not quite so obvious at the start of the article. You're hallowed contemporarys here on DPF helped out a lot of with what happen's later from around about Part VI onward's.

In the many different contemporary conspiracy locales I have travelled since I began exploring the 'internet' scene. Contrary to what you say Dawn, I have actually seen a lot of people compare Diana to JFK. You want some evidence, well some of it is linked in Part II of my series. Alex Jones has often included Diana in the same vein as JFK and MLK, Matchbox 20 had them all in there video. Just do a Google search on JFK and Diana. In NZ my personal experience has often been this. Once people know about my JFK stuff, I am always being asked what I thought about Diana (clearly you haven't read that far yet mate). This really annoyed me greatly because well she really annoyed me growing up here. Not being in the Commonwealth, let alone the Southern Hemisphere. Many people in the US have very little to no idea at all how much she was rammed down Antipodean throats, ever since Dame Kiri Te Kanawa (from NZ which is part of the Commonwealth like Canada Dawn) sung at her wedding to Charles. Not only that she visited NZ with William in 1981, which made her a hero. My saying I had no interest in her in anyway, would get you glares and comments as if you had insulted a family member. Sometimes even threats of violence (my mates have a few good stories about that). That's how it was growing up over here. Hence I decided next time someone asks me the question, about their being a conspiracy in her case when I discussed JFK (a person of far more importance in the grand scheme of things).They were going to wish they never asked me again.

Thus I have a pretty dispassionate view of events. Which as you can see has led me into some troubling waters with CD. Fair play to him though, he is very passionate about this case. In hindsight I think should have held back on my feelings for Spencer, as he suggested, either that or I should have reworded what I said.concerning CD. I suspect I may have held him off for the time being, as I move into a more conspiratorial vein (as I told him I would). In terms of length I actually didn't intend for the piece to be so long. I blame this on some very good conversations with Jan and Magda via a series of emails just after my first piece was finished. As a result it's taken a little longer to complete. Further, when you are dealing with a serialisation it can tough to keep a flow going. Its also a bitch if you leave something important out you have to figure out a way to include it later or in some kind of summary. Nonetheless, the results I feel are worth all the shite I've copped lol. I sincerely believe that in extricating Al Fayed from the case. Not to mention dealing with myth's concerning Diana Spencer and calling out Martin Gregory. There are still grounds for conspiracy, or at the very least a good debate for one. What's truly astounding is that in the 16 years or so since it happened, bar the advice and insights I was given here by people on this very forum. The Diana field is remarkably poor in comparison to JFK. Indeed, I asked Jan and Magda about the state of the Diana conspiracy literature. They sure as heck weren't kidding me when they confirmed it was shite.

For example, I've had a more indepth look at one of their better guys John Morgan recently. My initial praise for his excellent work concerning the toxicity tests, has given way to some deep misgivings about his methods. Like far to many of his ilk, he seems prepared to take all witnesses that are more or less pro conspiracy as bible. He doesn't keep an eye out for conflicting accounts accepting Al Fayeds pregnancy claims without questions etc, etc, etc. Jon King and his pal Beveridge are in the same mould. There's some okay stuff, yet while King and Beveridge say they try and avoid Al Fayeds musings, they essentially make all the same gaffs he does. Now these guys are amongst the top Diana experts. Oh deary me. In this piece of mine I try my best to be honest about my speculations and musings. Because heck that's what many of them are. Far to many so called 'researchers' in the Diana fold don't tend to have that sort modesty!!!

I did not ever realize that Jan, CD and Magda were all "David Guyatt influenced". Interesting. David would no doubt find that amusing. You charge that although she expreessed concerns about her safety she took no precautions. Getting past the fact of victim blaming, so unfair, I ask you just what exactly does one do when he or she believes his/her life is in danger? What could she have done differently on that terrible evening?

Lol I never said that Jan, CD or Magda were influenced by Guyatt in all other facets of conspiracy. Just this area these guys simply told me to track down what Dave Guyatt had written and commented on. Sadly there's not that much which is a real pity, but his outlook is really admired by. Believe it or not, I am very concerned about my blaming the victim. Nothings worse in my book. I also don't recall if I voice my concern about victim bashing when I discuss her security concerns in Part VII (I think). If not I wish I had.

But Dawn mate I have to say reading about my piece via the comments on this thread is hardly sensible.

The reason being is that it is all rather complex. The motives of the victim fearing for their safety can and would be questioned in any court. You'd know this being our resident ace lawyer, that being if Spencer's case was ever prosecuted the lawyers from the defence would attack or at least try and undermine the notion that Diana feared for her life. This is the big problem with Diana (and I think at least Jan and Magda may agree with me on this point, hopefully CD as well). She was many things to many people. Everybody felt as if they had a special connection with her (either that or they talked shite). Some people heard about her security fears some didn't. Somedays she was concerned about her safety and other days she simply didn't care. One day she's throwing herself down stairs, the next she's concerned that Charles Muslim friends would 'off her' for leaving him. But lo and behold the next minute she was going out with some. I mean she thought Versace's shooting was a conspiracy and she thought the same guys were also out to get her. Even her trusted friends were so used to her flippancy, like her old lawyer they rarely took her seriously.

What we have here unfortunately, is a very real Cry Wolf scenario. She may well have been proven right in the end, but the harsh reality is that she never seriously or consistently anticipated she would be. Now, I'm not a lawyer in any way, but after all this I sure as hell wouldn't use her comments regarding her safety to convince a jury of pre-meditation in a trial up against some hot shit lawyer.

In contrast we all know people like Karen Silkwood, Rosa Parks, JFK, X, MLK, RFK all expressed concern for their safety. Their closest pals didn't role their eyes and think 'shit here she/he goes again'. These guys generally only spoke about personal security fears when asked. They never pushed these envelopes to all and sundry, they didn't play victim. The defence would thus have a ton of trouble trying to discredit them and their suspicions. Simply, because these guys had no illusions about what they were up against. This I feel is key. It was after some great discussions with Magda, that I came to believe like her that Spencer while very canny with the public and the media. Was also pretty immature and naive about societies true nasties. Too few people understand she likely had no idea of the situation she was getting herself into with landmines. Susan Simmons, who I discuss in later parts of my essay is the one person who has written about Di's claims for her safety in this area. However the women (Simmons) is so full of shite with regards to Diana's fears about landmine merchants it's laughable.

Thus the question of what Spencer could have done differently that evening is a very, very difficult one. Because of course what I will say will likely come across as hostile or insensitive. If she had been a little more prescient, maybe a press conference discussing her fears about fronting the landmine campaigns, would have been a good idea well before that night in question. She may have copped some flak, but it may have put people on alert. My only insight here is an idea CD planted in my ear in his roundabout kind of way. Could Spencer have had word from a trusted insider that she was safe on the issue? Was she told that saying something about fearing for her safety publically was a bad move? Maybe Dawn there were Judas's on the inside of Spencer and Al Fayeds groups!

I promise to go back and finish the piece...with the hope that it gets better. And like CD said above: keep at it. That you care enough to investigate and write about these matters is a good thing.

Thanks Dawn, I don't really know if it will get better lol. I fully admit that it's a very rugged read at the start, while I make no apologies for that. In hindsight Dawn there are some things I'd probably change. I would get stuck into Martyn Gregory earlier for starters. I'd probably tone down my venom concerning Spencer a little. Yet I am not going to dodge the fact Al Fayed's rantings and squirmings have trivialised what could potentially be an interesting case badly. He's Diana's own inhouse Fetzer. An important aspect of this essay, not to mention the part I have most enjoyed discussing with CD, Magda and Jan. Is that people like Martyn Gregory, created a paradigm utilising Al Fayed to nullify logical debate in the topic. An example would be having the Kennedy assassination being defined, by Fetzer and Mack going at it toe to toe. This is essentially what the Diana debate for all intents and purposes is. After the dross I have seen I really don't want the tossers involved in the Diana field thinking they have a sniff in the JFK zone.

Returning to the point about 'getting better' If you also mean by 'getting better' I suddenly embrace the dubious claims that Diana Spencer was pregnant and going to marry Dodi Fayed. Then I suspect people will be bitterly dissapointed lol. If people are wanting me to say the Royals did it, I am very sorry to say people will be disappointed there also. If on the other hand they are open to it possibly being some contracted hit, aided and abetted by a proffesional bunch of assassins with interests in keeping the Royal Family's brand name free of trouble in trade circles and munition supply they might be a little happier.

Yours Coogs.

[Tracy Riddle]

I've never spent much time researching this subject, but this documentary is quite good:

[Dawn Meredith]

I've never spent much time researching this subject, but this documentary is quite good:

Darn the video is unavailable. It will be 19 years tomorrow.

I so remember that terrible Sat. night. Erick and I were in bed and were watching a James Taylor concert on tv. Since listening to music at night only worsens my insomnia, I decided to change the station as we had plans the next morning with Erick's family. Bad idea. I ended up being up all night in disbelief and tears. I was suspicious from the start, but I suppose that comes from a lifetime of studying deep events. Sigh.... I remember Erick's wonderful dad- God rest his soul- suggesting that the driver was "probably drunk". I became so angered at that comment that I invented a reason to leave the house to calm down.

Man, I Miss Jan!!! I wonder if he ever ventures back to his onetime "home".

I think there must be better threads somewhere on here on this murder. This was just the first I happened upon.

Dawn

[Anthony Thorne]

John Morgan, author of the mammoth, multi-volume study on Diana's death (I have two volumes, and they're very good), accused Sherard Cowper-Coles as being the mastermind of the operation to kill Diana. Cowles is not named in the linked publicity article below, but he's the guy.

https://www.newsmaker.com.au/news/33553/...8YOFLU8yHk

A quote by Morgan about Cowper-Coles.

Sherard Cowper-Coles was the most senior infusion into the political and economic departments of the Paris embassy in 1997. He came in as the political counsellor, which means that he immediately became the head of that department.

The 2007-8 Diana inquest was told by Michael Jay, British ambassador to France, that Cowper-Coles arrived to take up his post about 12 hours after the crash. The previous head of MI6 in France, Eugene Curley, declared under oath that he was still in office at the time of the crash but was on holiday in La Rochelle, 470 km from Paris.

Other evidence revealed in my book Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana? indicates that these men were both lying and that Cowper-Coles took over from Curley at some point around two weeks before the crash took place.

Cowper-Coles was not heard from at the inquest despite the above admission that he was in Paris within 12 hours of the deaths.

In his 2011 official FCO biography interview Cowper-Coles failed to mention Princess Diana once, despite admitting the next year that the death of Princess Diana would "dominate much of the Embassy's work for years to come".

In March 2012 I published Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana? which included details of Cowper-Coles' involvement in the assassination of the princess. Seven months later Cowper-Coles published his memoirs, Ever The Diplomat, in which he made his first public admission of his role in events following Princess Diana's death.

And for futher reading, here's a UK 9/11 board's discussion of the man.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=162314

If Cowper-Coles was a leading deep state figure for the Blair government, his later career was interesting. Blair made him the British Ambassador to Israel in September, 2001, and he later served as British Ambassador to Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, and as a special representative of the Uk Foreign Secretary to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Guardian article on Cowper-Coles, from June 2007:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007...fghanistan

Sherard Cowper-Coles was expecting a big job in London as he approached the end of his tour of duty in Saudi Arabia, but found that he was being posted to Kabul to oversee Britain's ambitious and controversial mission to bring stability to Afghanistan. No-one who knows Her Majesty's ambassador can have seriously expected him to stay silent.

His warning this week that the UK presence was a marathon that could last three decades, not a short sprint, has confirmed his reputation for shrewd and undiplomatic plain speaking - with a dash of self-advertisement.

Sir Sherard, 52, has been making waves since he joined the Foreign Office in 1977 with an Oxford double first in classics. He studied Arabic at the "school for spies" at Shemlan in Lebanon, using what his friend and ex-ambassador Chris Wilton calls "a brain the size of a small planet", before being sent to Cairo.

"Sherard is more than just a diplomat," says Rosemary Hollis of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. "He's a man with a voice and views. Mealy-mouthed he is not." Another former colleague observes: "Sherard is talented, clever and successful, so he does attract acid comment."
Flurries of attention and controversy have accompanied Cowper-Coles in every job he has done. An indiscreet briefing on Northern Ireland when he was at the Washington embassy had unionists baying for his blood. In the early 1990s he clashed with Chris Patten, the governor of Hong Kong, over moves to democratise the colony before the handover to China. He came close to the heart of power as Robin Cook's private secretary during the Kosovo crisis, helping his prickly and gaffe-prone boss manage a difficult relationship with the mandarins.

It was a sign of change that he became the first Arabist to be posted as ambassador to Tel Aviv in 2001 as the second Palestinian intifada raged in the West Bank and Gaza.

"Tony Blair wanted to win the trust of the Israelis and Sherard played a big role in that," recalls the Middle East journalist Adel Darwish. Characteristically, he made much of studying Hebrew in north London and then wowing the natives. But schmoozing and swapping farming anecdotes with then prime minister Ariel Sharon did nothing to stop the grim deterioration of the conflict.

Next stop, with some raised eyebrows in the Arab world, was Saudi Arabia, a strategic linchpin of British policy in the region, where oil and other delicate matters such as the massive al-Yamamah arms deal had to be carefully managed. It was there, last year, that Cowper-Coles famously recommended that the Serious Fraud Office end its criminal investigation into alleged bribery by the British arms firm BAE or see grave damage to British interests - a position he still insists was justified.

The Saudis liked the tough way the man they called "Abu Henry" (after his oldest son) responded to al-Qaida terrorist attacks.
But he was forced to make a Boris Johnson style apology to the people of Nottingham when he claimed that the streets of Saudi cities were safer than theirs. Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, paid glowing public tribute when the Cowper-Coleses left (his wife Bridget is also an accomplished Arabist.) The sentiment was genuine, Saudis say. Sadly, the ambassador's pet falcons, Nour and Alwaleed, had to stay behind due to UK veterinary regulations.

Previous British envoys to Saudi Arabia have gone on to plum European capitals - compensation after the rigours of the austere Wahabi system - or a top position in Whitehall.

Cowper-Coles might have expected to become a director at the Foreign Office or follow another big hitter, Nigel Sheinwald, as the prime minister's foreign policy adviser. But Sheinwald, heading for Washington, is being replaced by another Arabist and Iraq expert.

Cowper-Coles was braced for another call about BAE when his secure phone in the Riyadh embassy rang late last year. But it was the news that he was being asked to go to Afghanistan. He was surprised, but said yes at once.

Kabul used to be a lowly grade-three posting and would have been seen as a step down after Riyadh. But that is old thinking. In the aftermath of what every Foreign Office Arabist sees as the disaster of the war in Iraq Afghanistan has become a far higher priority: the overall effort being made now is far beyond the scale of any other British diplomatic mission in the world, combining political support for the Karzai government with development aid, judicial training and other advice, to say nothing of being on the front line of an escalating war with the Taliban.

"Sherard is a big, ballsy character who's always believed he should be shaping policy rather than just implementing it," says another old friend and admirer.

Now he is getting his biggest ever chance to do that in what is without doubt the toughest job he has ever been asked to do.


The CV
Born January 8 1955
Education Freston Lodge school, New Beacon school, Tonbridge school; Latin and Greek, Hertford College Oxford; Arabic, university of Alexandria, Egypt
Family Married Bridget Elliott in 1982, four sons and a daughter
Career Joined diplomatic service 1977, various positions; speech writer for Margaret Thatcher 1983-87; first secretary to Washington 1987-1991; assistant, Foreign Office security policy department 1991-93; resident associate, International Institute for Strategic Studies 1993-94; head of the Foreign Office in Hong Kong 1994-97; political counsellor in Paris 1997-99; private secretary to foreign secretary Robin Cook 1999-2001; ambassador to Israel 2001-03; ambassador to Saudi Arabia 2003-07; ambassador to Afghanistan 2007-; awarded knighthood in 2004

Four years later, Cowper-Coles received a greater award for his services.

BAE Systems hires Britain's former envoy to Saudi Arabia

https://www.theguardian.com/business/201...ae-systems

19th Feb, 2011

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles played a key role in ending the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into BAE's al-Yamamah arms deal

The senior British diplomat who played a central role in pressuring the Serious Fraud Office to drop its investigation into BAE Systems over the al-Yamamah Saudi arms deal has been hired by the defence group, the Guardian has learned.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who left the Foreign Office last October, will become BAE's international business development director, focusing on the Middle East and south-east Asia. He starts his new, full-time role next week.

The move is likely to cause uproar among anti-corruption campaigners. It will also raise further questions over the close relationship between the government and BAE, and the circumstances in which the SFO investigation was controversially dropped in 2006.

Cowper-Coles' appointment has been cleared by the prime minister's advisory committee on business appointments, which vets new jobs for former civil servants who have worked for the crown in the past two years. One of the conditions set is that Cowper-Coles must not lobby ministers or civil servants on behalf of BAE for the next two years.

The committee said: "Given that it has been four years since he had any involvement with BAE Systems as HM ambassador to Riyadh, and that the appointment will be four months since his last day of service, the appointment was approved subject to the condition that, for two years from his last day of service, he should not become personally involved in lobbying UK government ministers or crown servants, including special advisers, on behalf of his new employer."

It is understood that William Hague, the foreign secretary, has also cleared the appointment.

A fluent speaker of Arabic, Hebrew and French, Cowper-Coles was ambassador to Saudi Arabia between 2003 and 2006; he had three significant meetings in London in late 2006 with Robert Wardle, then director of the SFO. Cowper-Coles told Wardle that Britain's national security was at risk if the BAE investigation continued, as Saudi princes were threatening to withdraw co-operation in fighting terrorism. Two days after the last meeting, Wardle ended the investigation, attracting condemnation in Britain and abroad. Tony Blair, then prime minister, and Lord Goldsmith, attorney general, both cited national security concerns in supporting the move. Under Britain's anti-corruption laws, the government can intervene in an investigation only on such grounds and not for commercial or diplomatic reasons.

In February 2008, one of Britain's most senior judges accused the government of "holding a gun to the head" of Wardle. BAE had been lobbying the government intensively for some time.

Cowper-Coles has always defended his role, insisting that he would do the same again in similar circumstances.

It is understood that when he left the Foreign Office last year, Cowper-Coles wrote to BAE, Europe's largest defence contractor, to ask about opportunities with the group, and was surprised to be offered a full-time job.

BAE is being hit as the US and UK governments squeeze their defence budgets. The company warned on Thursday that sales from armaments and armoured vehicles generated mostly in the US would be lower than it had previously anticipated this year, having fallen 25% year on year. Sales are growing fastest in its international business, covering Australia, India and Saudi Arabia.

BAE said: "Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles has joined BAE Systems as business development director, international. He brings a wealth of international experience and will provide valuable advice and support for business-winning campaigns, particularly in the Middle East. It is, of course, normal business practice for global companies who supply products and services to national governments and the armed forces to employ personnel who can help them understand, meet and exceed their customers' needs."
Brilliant career

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, 56, went on "extended leave" from the Foreign Office last June. The straight-talking veteran diplomat had served as UK ambassador to Afghanistan, and was appointed special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan in February 2009, but fell out with the Foreign Office under William Hague after clashing with senior Nato and US officials.

He had insisted that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan was heading for failure, and that talks with the Taliban should be prioritised. A month after he formally left the Foreign Office in October, he accused the British army of submitting "misleadingly optimistic" reports on the state of the war.

Cowper-Coles joined the Foreign Office in 1977 with an Oxford double first in classics. He studied Arabic at the "school for spies" at Shemlan in Lebanon, using what his friend and fellow ex-ambassador Chris Wilton calls "a brain the size of a small planet", before being sent to Cairo.Friends say that he was not interested on leaving government after more than 40 years in taking up a "portfolio" career made up of several private sector jobs, and did not want to work for a bank or an oil company.

Researchers can probably join the dots on a head MI6 figure being implicated in the death of a woman who was (a.) romancing the muslim nephew of arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who had also (b.) campaigned against landmines, and who (c.) was rumoured to be preparing to make a public gesture on behalf of the Palestinians. That same MI6 figure is then hired to work for a British multinational defence, security and aerospace group after curtailing a government investigation into that same company. All in a day's work, I guess.

BAE Systems: Timeline of bribery allegations

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...tions.html

John Morgan's Diana series covers something like ten volumes or more. The whole series can be seen if you do a book search on Amazon for 'John Morgan Diana'. His two most recent volumes are condensations of the entire series for readers who want a single-volume overview. Morgan's site is here.

http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/

Morgan was diagnosed with Multiple System Atrophy several years ago. Googling around, it seems Morgan gave a statement in August last year that he only had a few months to live. His work deserves more attention than it has received to date.

http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2015_08_2...organ.html

[Dawn Meredith]

Thanks Anthony. I watched an interview with him on here yesterday (different thread) and was astounded that he'd written 10 books.
The last one, he said summarizes all his findings from the first 9.

Dawn

[Anthony Thorne]

I'd love to own print versions of the whole series, but this is the sort of research material that is probably best made for Kindle. I bought a semi-recent Createspace JFK volume from Amazon last week (ROCKERFELLEROCRACY - an interesting volume that kind of leads off from Donald Gibson's work) and the print version was $25 or so while I think the Kindle version was three or four bucks. Morgan's Diana volumes are similarly discounted in ebook form.

[Marlene Zenker]

I've never spent much time researching this subject, but this documentary is quite good:

Darn the video is unavailable. It will be 19 years tomorrow.

I so remember that terrible Sat. night. Erick and I were in bed and were watching a James Taylor concert on tv. Since listening to music at night only worsens my insomnia, I decided to change the station as we had plans the next morning with Erick's family. Bad idea. I ended up being up all night in disbelief and tears. I was suspicious from the start, but I suppose that comes from a lifetime of studying deep events. Sigh.... I remember Erick's wonderful dad- God rest his soul- suggesting that the driver was "probably drunk". I became so angered at that comment that I invented a reason to leave the house to calm down.

Man, I Miss Jan!!! I wonder if he ever ventures back to his onetime "home".

I think there must be better threads somewhere on here on this murder. This was just the first I happened upon.

Dawn

[Magda Hassan]

Thank you Marlene!