Giovanni di stefano reveals that sir anthony blunt was no traitor and no spy

[Peter Presland]

So, according to Mr Di Stefano, Anthony Blunt was deeply loyal and self-sacrificing to both his country and the House of Windsor. Hmmm.

6 July 2009:

It is said that ANTHONY BLUNT was a spy on behalf of the then USSR (Russia) and that in 1964 he openly admitted his guilt but was allowed to maintain his contacts and work for the Royal Family and his rooms at Cambridge University. In fact it was said that he was the ‘fifth member’ of the so called ‘group of five’ that haunted Cambridge University for the past 80 years as traitors.
What is certain about BLUNT was that he was the son of a priest and was born in Bournemouth. I knew Tony Blunt. It is said he died the 26th March 1983 now that would have been a Saturday. He actually died on the 23rd March but the news was not announced until the Sunday. Why was that? Because ANTHONY BLUNT was no traitor but was a loyal servant to the Royal Family and Britain and it was he that was responsible for the identification of Burgess and Maclean and his so called ‘recruitment’ as a spy for the USSR was solely as a means of identifying the real traitors.
Now why is it that he must be remembered as a traitor? Let us just apply some logic. The story goes that BLUNT confessed in 1964 yet he is allowed to remain in his job working next to the Royal Family, remain at Cambridge University whereas the ‘others’ were either prosecuted or sought sanctuary in Russia?
BLUNT was no traitor and those that counted knew of this including HM The Queen and HRH Prince Philip and of late HRH Prince Charles.
Why his death was announced 4 days after his true death? The autopsy carried out showed that he died a ‘natural’ death although what can be normal in dying still baffles me. His death certificate shows heart failure. But why announce his death four days late? 1983 was a year of turmoil and Mrs. Thatcher was the Prime Minister. The so called ‘communist rebels’ led by Scargill were playing havoc with the country. Anthony Blunt knew that he was ill and his death, the death of a so called traitor, a red, a communist who were the then enemy of the government was a good distraction. BLUNT knew that his death as a so called traitor would continue to help the cause and it did.
But ANTHONY BLUNT was never a traitor and many a true ‘spy’ was identified and subsequently arrested/exchanged/killed as a result of his information.
I had the honor of meeting Antony Blunt at Trinity College. I knew the true situation. Blunt continued to work with the Royal Family and openly identified to most as the so called ‘Russian spy’ but HM The Queen and HRH Prince Philip knew otherwise. Yes, there was a so called debriefing on the 23rd April 1964 but the contents were fabricated. Blunt continued to enjoy the trust of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR but he NEVER gave a single secret. Instead he was invaluable to the British Security Service in identifying Russian spies.
That he was a homosexual and lived in his apartment at the Courtauld Institute with the Scots-born former Irish Guards bandsman John Gaskin, is true. But being a homosexual is one matter a spy another.
Blunt wrote two versions of his life but of which only one may be published soon. The true story will not be published until 100 years after his death in 2083 and it will name many names, many spies that were allowed to continue to ply their trade but who were identified thanks to Anthony Blunt.
Why is it necessary for me to reveal this now 25 years after his death? Why does the Royal Family not simply say so? I understand that it was Blunt’s own wishes that his duty to the Royal Family and to England was to remain his private matter and that for the good of the country and the security of his companion it was best that way. Well, John Gaskin was about to reveal the true situation when mysteriously he ‘died’ in 1987 at a train crossing! Was it an accident or was he pushed? He was indeed murdered because Gaskin was only a bit player and expendable in this high profile game.
25 years is enough for my purposes and the true status and loyalties of Anthony Blunt can now harm no one. There is no real cold war and everyone knows each other’s secrets.
ANTHONY BLUNT was never a traitor and loyal to the cause. I know he wanted it the way it was orchestrated but he would not have approved of his companion’s murder in Scotland.
It is for these reasons and many more that it is necessary for the TRUTH now to be told. The FSB knew ironically only in 1987 when Gaskin was murdered and that was the year that many things changed in the world of espionage and many came out of hiding:- some still remain today.

[Peter Presland]

For copious background information pertaining the Di Stephano's general credibility this article in The Scotsman is useful.

He is clearly not an 'Establishment' insider - or favourite. Rather, if this article is any guide, more an Establishment Wanabee with a very dubious past.

Still, his Blunt allegations are interesting - if a little pretentious

[Jan Klimkowski]

As for Di Stefano himself, I read the following and that was enough:

Investigation of Blackwater is unjust
2:46 PM ET Monday, October 08, 2007

Giovanni Di Stefano [lawyer for Ali Hassan al-Majid, Studio Legale Internazionale, Rome]: "The situation in Iraq is complicated and difficult. Death is common and murder ripe. I am of the view that in the investigation of any criminal matter in Iraq at the moment cannot be investigated by applying the normal standards. There is no question of adopting 'beyond reasonable doubt' or even the lower threshold of 'on the balance of probabilities'. The Iraqi Judicial system does not recognise such maxims. They apply the test of whether a Judge is 'satisfied' of the facts.

Blackwater security officers face a difficult task. They cannot ask questions first and then shoot if attacked. They must respond immediately. This is a position that has been forced upon them by virtue of the US/UK unlawful attack on Iraq and the resentment the people of Iraq generally hold for all foreigners. I am satisfied that whilst murder and death is deplorable, the criticisms of Blackwater cannot be justified under the climate and conditions upon which they are forced to operate. Whilst the Iraqi Government and the FBI are holding enquires into the alleged deaths of 17 citizens, it is to be noted that when 4 Blackwater Security Officers were killed no enquires were held. The FBI have no experience of day to day life in Iraq and as such applying US standards investigating events in an unknown country currently by the name of Iraq where law and order is non-existent makes any investigation of Blackwater wholly unfair and unjust, and I am of the view has only been ordered for the purposes of political appeasement.

I make the said statement because I and my colleagues have personal experience with Blackwater and other security companies. Under difficult and on one occasion at the airport dangerous situations, the Blackwater Security Officers behaved in a manner that 'saved' lives rather than risk life."

The revenge of the west for the killing of four Blackwater/Xe/Manchurian Global mercenaries did not occur in a court of law. Rather, that revenge was the medieval blood sacrifice of the men, women and children of Fallujah.

Di Stefano is a rather bizarre fantasist who's clearly not one of Their common or garden made man - the Yanks have deported him and so have the Kiwis.

The Blunt claims are not entirely implausible. But then the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (sorry Windsor :lollypop has its own dark, geopolitical, secrets. And that whole third man/fourth man/fifth man episode is in part a metaphor for the existential condition of most spooks. Like Angleton, they trust noone, and suspect everyone.

Was Blunt a double/triple agent, remaining loyal to Queen and Country? Possible. But the whole thing reminds me of Peter Wright's paranoid Spycatcher claims that Roger Hollis (MI5 director) and Harold Wilson (PM) were KGB agents.

[Charles Drago]

One cannot understand any of this absent the appreciation of the so-called third alternative to the conventional Cold War construct -- what George Michael Evica referred to as the "treasonous cabal" of intelligence operatives whose masters were above Cold War differences.

This third force is at work throughout the Philby layers -- and in so many other places.