Princess Diana articles by Seamus

[Seamus Coogan]

This essay is, in a word, disturbing.

Seamus, of course, will speak for himself. And I acknowledge the kinds words he used in the piece to describe me.

But it seems to me that Seamus is making THE critical errors that are most commonly made by well-intentioned but less than ideally disciplined researchers of deep political phenomena relating to assassinations: He moves to the "who" and "why" questions without first establishing the "how" of the event under scrutiny, and he riddles his arguments with straw men.

Analyses of Mohammad Al Fayed's character and sexual dalliances have as much to do with the process of discovering the "how" of the Diana case as analyses JFK's character and sexual dalliances have to do with the processes of discovering the "how" of Dealey Plaza. Such analyses likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.

Those who would draw moral and/or historical equivalency between Diana and the JFK/RFK/MLK triumvirate have as much to contribute to the efforts to establish the "how" of the Diana case as those who disparage the morals and/or historical significance of JFK, RFK, and MLK have to contribute to the efforts to establish the "hows" of Dealey Plaza, Lost Angeles, and Memphis. Analyses of said individuals and groups likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.

As was the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, the "how" of Diana's death will be discovered by those who are willing and able to conduct a classic criminal investigation of the event -- one deeply informed and directed by the lessons and methods taught by deep political science.

I have worked on this case from Day One. I have concluded that Diana was murdered by conspirators. I am now applying the Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics model to my work.

I am working on reverse-engineering the "how" and moving outward from the facts in a process-of-elimination investigation designed and executed to discover the "who" and "why" of Diana's murder.

"Who" could have done it in the way it appears to have been done? For instance: "Who" had the authority to strip security that night?

Seamus: You don't have to admire Diana in order to examine the "how" of her death impartially and honorably.

CD after coming across your debates and your discussions I am very much middle of the road on the topic.

That's a huge leap from where I was. My aim or my intention is to bring people towards yourself, Jan and Magda indeed the DPF. That's when you guys can really discuss the evidence in the case in a rational manner, away from the Al Fayed circus. Charles you make some salient points which I always thought you would. I've often been asked why I go over material long since discredited like say John Hankey or Alex Jones/David Icke? What we forget as researchers is that most people who say they are really are not. I hasten to add most people don't consider themselves as anything other than interested. Thus I don't tend to pitch my stuff at people inside the JFK zone. Or say the Diana one (I have no interest in going there, bar the piece's I have submitted). It's really for those outside that come across the BS and disinfo. I like to think of myself as a cleanser of the stuff people like yourself, Jim Di, Jan and Mag can't be bothered dealing with. You know the pesky bullshit you always get asked but cannot be stuffed discussing. Trivial crap like Al Fayed for instance. Thus I do attack Al Fayed consistently. I also reinforce the real discussions taking place here on this forum. Sadly, a lot of the stuff dealing with Al Fayed does fall into the sleaze category. His bull only looms larger thanks to Keith Allens foray. I also discuss his asnine claims as being a boon for any potential conspirators.

You now have a piece that provides an alternative to the mewlings of Al Fayed. As for a perceived lack of understanding, I have for deep political events simply because I have a different take on the issues at hand. Making that sort of judgement call is odd. How can one judge 'deep political insight' its a matter of opinion. I may think from time to time somethings you say, may not be cool. Anyhow what I do is confront the elephants in the freaking room. I don't know anybody in the Diana zone that has effectively told Al Fayed to sod off. I think if I was really interested in the case enough to investigate, I think I would have out of necessity. Like you and I have told a number of people in JFK circles. I see giving Al Fayed a bit of grief as no different to nailing a certain other researcher. Am I lacking deep political analysis for bagging that person not to mention his pals that sought to dominate the discourse in JFK? Making us all look like mad hatters? A man of your obvious intellect should see this dichotomy. Straw candidates need to be exposed as badly as the conspirators. You've essentially said the same thing. Thus I am puzzled and as I said slightly hurt by your deep politics comments. Further, that piece was not edited by myself the flurry at the end about Al Fayed's sexcapades was never in my initial draft, that's my editor. That stuff is in the Orth article.

Despite all of the asides, I do look forward to your continued comments on this piece as it evolves. Though I have a feeling you may disagree with much of it and the angles I take at times. I also have no doubts concerning your expertise on the case. Remember, I emailed you Jan and Magda for some advice, however your's was the shortest reply lol. The Diana field is shockingly void of decent researchers. Terrible in fact, why is it thus in a small corner of the interweb and the Diana death scenario you guys are some of the only people I could find not talking shit about the case? It's a credit to you guys and it's a good feeling promoting you guys even though we may not agree entirely. Like I say I am looking forward to your future comments. Just remember too this piece is some 20,000 words at last count it's very early days.