Prince Charles' wives and auto accidents

[Anthony Thorne]

Morgan has multiple books out on this subject and by critical reputation seems to be the acknowledged expert on the matter.

This 2012 book is an overall summary of his thesis, putting his research into a single short narrative.

http://www.amazon.com/Paris-London-Conne...gy_b_img_y

Annie Machon and David Shayler are thanked in the opening comments. Before David Shayler fell under the spell of (from memory) an intelligence-linked therapist who clearly knew which psychological wires to cross to turn Shayler into an easy target for ridicule, Shayler closed out an interview (years ago) on the Webster Tarpley show with a brief discussion of the Diana case. As the closing credits music played, Tarpley said "David, tell us about the death of Princess Diana", and Shayley noted (a.) he'd heard that Diana was about to come out in support of the Palestinians, and (b.) a dossier that had been brandished by Mohamed Al Fayed as evidence for a conspiracy regarding Diana's death had been deliberately concocted by British intelligence to lead Al Fayed up the garden path and discredit any theories that would accrue from that document.

Morgan's other books (which seem to total a few thousand pages of research) are all available on Amazon. This review of one of them seems instructive - it's from 'Michael Nyman' (presumably not the musician) on Amazon UK, and reviews a book Morgan wrote in response to an earlier, possibly misleading Diana volume by author Alan Power:

"I was closely involved between 2007-11 in the making of a now-suppressed documentary film about the Unlawful Killing of Princess Diana. I have read every word of the transcript from the 2007-08 inquest into her death, and I have also read all of John Morgan's books, as well as the book by Alan Power. Therefore, my view of the respective merits of these two authors may be of some interest to readers.

Morgan's books are invaluable to anyone who wishes to understand what happened to Diana in Paris in August 1997, and what took place in the Royal Courts of Justice in 2007-08, where a corrupt farce of an inquest into her death was conducted. The books are rigorously academic in presentation, with every fact meticulously footnoted and referenced, and they are exhaustively indexed, all of which makes it very easy independently to verify the information (an absolutely essential prerequisite for any serious factual book, in my opinion). During the four years that we were making the documentary, our research team and I found the books (as they came to be written and published, because none of the inquest volumes had yet appeared when we began our own research) to be consistently accurate and trustworthy, and to corroborate our own independent investigations, with only a small handful of tiny errors. As somebody who has also completed a PhD (on an entirely different subject), I recognise in Morgan's work the painstaking attention to detail and accuracy that marks out a true scholar. This does, almost by definition, mean that his six weighty volumes of inquest analysis (plus another book about the 2006 Paget Report, and a large volume of police documents that the coroner withheld from the jury) are not easy to read. They are quite formidable in their sheer density, and the casual reader might feel daunted at embarking on a task of such Proustian dimensions. However, in 2012 Morgan did publish a summary - "Paris-London Connection" - a cut-to-the-chase version of his previous work. That short book is narrative in tone, rather than strictly academic, and I would happily recommend it to any interested reader. It has very few footnotes, but the factual basis for everything that Morgan writes about in that short book can be quickly found via the indexes of his larger series of books.

I first heard about Alan Power's "The Princess Diana Conspiracy" in the autumn of this year, and because it talked about SAS involvement in Diana's death (at a time when a similar allegation by "Soldier N" had become a news item), I purchased a copy of the Kindle edition. What struck me within the first few pages was that the author did not seem to have a secure grasp on the facts which he was allegedly marshalling in support of his central thesis (namely that Diana had been killed by the British Establishment, and specifically by the SAS). Every page was strewn with incorrect dates and quotes, witness statements (which, during my research, I had read in facsimile copies) had been changed, and there were no footnotes or references, so the casual reader would have no easy way to double-check the truth or falsity of what they were being told. Had I not spent four years researching the facts for a documentary, I might well have been taken in by Power's superficially plausible narrative, but as I read on I was appalled by his inability to get even the basic details correct. He doesn't seem to know what verdict the inquest jury brought in, nor understand the evidence that MI6 gave, nor the circumstances surrounding the divorce between Diana and Charles, nor who wrote the Mishcon Note nor... well, I could go on and on and on, but long before I reached the end (and I forced myself to get there!) I had reached the conclusion that this was an utterly worthless book, written by somebody who either didn't know or didn't care about the facts. He eventually comes to the (in my view) correct conclusion that Diana was deliberately killed by the British Establishment, but the "facts" he cites to support this are mostly fiction. And we're not just talking about a few errors here, we're talking about a book that is entirely and demonstrably constructed on nonsense, and that could easily be shot down in flames by anyone who actually knows the details of this case.

Why John Morgan has gone to the considerable trouble of publishing an entire book - "Alan Power Exposed" - which does indeed shoot it down in flames is for him to say, not me. However, I doubt if it has anything to do with one author being jealous of the success of another (which seems to be the main contention of the somewhat overheated review posted by Alan Power on this page). Hundreds of books about what did or did not happen to Diana have been published over the past sixteen years, and several of them have sold far better than Power's book (or indeed than Morgan's books) - "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham, for example - yet I am unaware of him having ever commented publicly on them. Having now read Morgan's review of Power's book, I see that he not only itemises the hundreds of errors that Power's book contains, but also suggests that Power might have deliberately written such a misleading book as a "vicious plot" (perhaps in conjunction with the intelligence services), to sow confusion amongst those who seek justice for Diana, and to make the whole movement seem like a bunch of crazed conspiracy theorists who cannot differentiate between fact and fiction. I don't know whether that is the case or not, but for Mr Power's sake I hope it is, because in that case he can undoubtedly claim to have had some success in misleading the public. Whereas, if he really carried out the years of research that he claims to have conducted, and then wrote this book in all sincerity, he must be in the running for the title of the most incompetent author who ever set pen to paper (or whatever the electronic equivalent of that phrase is nowadays).

Readers should, of course, think for themselves, and not take too much notice of any one review, (including this one!). But if they are tempted to read Alan Power's book on Diana, then I would humbly suggest that they also acquire a copy of John Morgan's review, which (because it continually gives references which allow the reader to verify information independently) will enable them to test the worth of the Power book for themselves. I think they will find, as I did, that there is something deeply wrong with Power's book, though whether the cause of that is mere incompetence, or something more malign, I am not in a position to say."