PDA

View Full Version : Princess Diana articles by Seamus



Magda Hassan
02-17-2012, 10:12 AM
The Princess Diana Debacle: Part I (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/02/the-princess-diana-debacle-part-i/)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/princessdiana.jpg (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)


To write a long piece on Diana Spencer, contributing to the plethora of literature written about her already, is something that I have resisted doing for an extremely long time.



Read the rest here

(http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/02/the-princess-diana-debacle-part-i/)

Charles Drago
02-17-2012, 03:23 PM
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.

Seamus Coogan
02-18-2012, 02:13 AM
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.

Keith Millea
02-18-2012, 05:59 PM
I've often been asked why I go over material discredited like say John Hankey or Alex Jones/David Icke. What we forget as researchers is that a lot of people aren't. 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 this piece). Its for those outside that come across the BS and disinfo.

Yes,and I thank Seamus for his research.This is exactly the reason that I posted for Seamus to empty his mail box.I wanted to know if Seamus has written,or is about to write about David Icke.I'm not a follower of Alex Jones or David Icke,but my youngest son is really taken by these guys.So Seamus,to me,has a definate target audience (people like me).

Although I don't have a particular interest in the Diana case itself,I hope that Seamus can give me some insights into others of my interest.I don't really have much respect for people like Icke,who proclaim to know much sacred and unproveable knowledge,and then will gladly sell it in some form to the gullible seekers (people like my son).

So hey,thanks Seamus,and if you've written about Icke please give me a link.

Seamus Coogan
02-20-2012, 01:40 AM
Yeah I have done my article on David Icke is pretty popular I have to say (so popular no one here has seen it lol). It's in eight parts. Try and get him to read my treatise
on Alex Jones ar CTKA also, second show him the conversations online here with myself AD/CD/JK/GB/ ripping JF a new one. Use that as a motivator tp prevent people descending into conspirahypocrite lunacy.

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/11/excluded-middle-legion-of-reason-researchers/

and

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/11/conspirahypocrites-conspiravangelism-commentators/

Lemme know what you think.

Furthering the point I made to CD is that I got another nice email from a FB pal. Who is a big fan of Carl Ogelsby (not Dawn lol) in it she said

"I was never a fan of Di either. As for her death, this essay was really a teaser; I'm tempted to go to Deep Politics to skip ahead."

I hope you get a lot of people from the article. If I was going to discuss her death with a level head this is where I would go.

Magda Hassan
03-03-2012, 08:23 AM
The Princess Diana Debacle – Part II (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/02/the-princess-diana-debacle-part-ii/)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/keithallen.png (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

Keith Allen is an actor, comedian, musician, writer, director and father of singer/songwriter Lily, who crashed the Cannes Film Festival in May of 2011 with his documentary ‘Unlawful Killing’, concerning Princess Diana’s death – specifically, the alleged murder of Diana Spencer and her partner Dodi Fayed.I had always thought of Allen as being a slightly arrogant, belligerent, yet ultimately an intelligent and talented bloke.
Indeed, some of his critiques of author Martin Gregory’s claims about the case have made for interesting reading. Thus, I advise viewing his ‘Rebuttal of Martyn Gregory’s Article by Keith Allen and the Unlawful Killing Production Team’ on their Facebook page.
In his film, he notes the following areas of suspicion surrounding Princess Diana’s death.
1) The legendary white Fiat Uno that clipped the car.
2) Diana was very much alive when rescue teams arrived.
3) Henri Paul, the driver’s appearance that night. Not drunk, blood tests faked.
4) There being no cameras working in the Alma tunnel that night.
5) The length of time it took Spencer to get to the hospital.
6) The names of the ambulance staff are still unknown.
7) While not a ‘note’ as such, Allen was inconclusive as to the motives of the crime, i.e. was it a ‘scare’ operation that simply went wrong? It is a balanced take, not often seen in the Diana field.
Thus, if we take an objective point of view, there certainly are some things to discuss either way (if you are interested in the Diana caper).
However, it is also one of the hardest films to find anywhere in the world.

Read the rest here (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/02/the-princess-diana-debacle-part-ii/)

Magda Hassan
03-03-2012, 08:24 AM
Princess Diana Part III – St Mohammed and Racist Royals (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/princess-diana-part-iii-st-mohammed-and-racist-royals/)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/martyngregory.png (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

Whether or not Martyn Gregory is an intelligence pawn (as Allen and Al Fayed have hinted strongly at) is not the issue here.
It is all about public perception, and it is in this key area where Gregory has positively run rings around both. While Keith Allen laments Gregory’s continual targeting of Al Fayed, anyone with an iota of intellect can see why Gregory would.
What troubles anyone of a sober mind is Al Fayed’s murder motives: that Spencer’s pregnancy and marriage to Dodi Fayed was one of the catalysts for her murder.
This ‘removal’, so say Allen and Al Fayed, was at the behest of a racist and ‘Nazi’ Royal Family concerned about the future King of England having a Muslim half brother.
Muhammad Al Fayed is hardly the most evil man in England. Indeed Al Fayed’s rival, the loathsome Roland ‘Tiny’ Rowland (1), whom he feuded over for control of Harrods, was a pretty nasty fellow as film maker Adam Curtis discussed in his brilliant 1999 documentary series the ‘Mayfair Set’ (2).
However, Rowland, for all his sinister underpinnings, did not turn Al Fayed into the richest and most incompetent conspirahypocrite in Britain.
If one has read Orth’s piece on Al Fayed, discussed in Part II (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/02/the-princess-diana-debacle-part-ii/), you would have seen he had been in trouble for racism at his Harrods store. However, it was not just Orth.


Read the rest here (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/princess-diana-part-iii-st-mohammed-and-racist-royals/)

Charles Drago
03-03-2012, 02:46 PM
Magda,

Please pardon my cement-headedness, but who is the author of these articles?

Jan Klimkowski
03-03-2012, 03:23 PM
Charles - if you click on the blue titles, they'll hyperlink you to the articles, which appear to be authored by Seamus.

I can't make much sense of them....

Charles Drago
03-03-2012, 04:34 PM
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 what, exactly, about how Diana, Mr. Al-Fayed's son, and their driver were killed?

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 what, exactly, about how "Spencer" was killed?

"Spencer"???

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

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."

And it gets worse.

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"???

Seamus Coogan
03-03-2012, 10:08 PM
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
03-31-2012, 12:20 AM
Princess Diana Part IV – Versace Murder Had Political Motive (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/princess-diana-part-iv-versace-murder-had-political-motive/)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/diana1.jpg (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

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 SecurityMischon 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/princess-diana-part-iv-versace-murder-had-political-motive/

Magda Hassan
03-31-2012, 12:24 AM
Princess Diana Part V – Myths of Marriage and Pregnancy (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/princess-diana-part-v-myths-marriage/)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/dianadodi.jpg (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

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 DianaRegardless 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/princess-diana-part-v-myths-marriage/

Magda Hassan
03-31-2012, 12:26 AM
Princess Diana Part VI – Soft Touch Running Interference (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/03/princess-diana-soft-touch-running-interference/)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/dianatabloid.jpg (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

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 ConspiraciesThus, 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/princess-diana-soft-touch-running-interference/#more-16588

Charles Drago
03-31-2012, 12:47 AM
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
03-31-2012, 01:39 AM
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
03-31-2012, 10:59 AM
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 down—indeed, it has been laying down for 10 years—that 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 (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2003/jan/15/engagements).

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
03-31-2012, 12:35 PM
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
04-12-2012, 08:24 PM
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-princess-di-bombshell/517331187/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl5%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D151404

:director:

Magda Hassan
04-26-2012, 07:54 AM
Princess Diana Death Part VIII – Suspicious Evidence (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/04/princess-diana-death-suspicious-evidence/)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/davidshayler.jpg (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

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 MachonMachon, 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.
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/anniemachon.jpgWhile 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.

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/richardtomlinson.jpg (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

David Shayler and Richard TomlinsonDavid 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.

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/secretsofthecrash.jpg (http://www.topsecretwriters.com/)

Richard TomlinsonTomlinson 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/04/business/the-company-as-big-business.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)
(2) Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/al-fayed-and-the-cia-conman-1161637.html)
(3) Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200089/Call-Delores-says-MI5-whistleblower-David-Shayler.html)
(4) Guardian Lies (http://www.guardianlies.com/section%206/page66.html)
(5) Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-main-players-in-a-tragic-story-what-we-now-know-428562.html)
(6) Guardian
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog+media/national-newspapers)http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/04/princess-diana-death-suspicious-evidence/
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog+media/national-newspapers)

Jan Klimkowski
04-26-2012, 06:38 PM
Seamus - I have many things to say, but let's start with the transformation of David Shayler into Dolores Dork, which follows a classic and spookily archetypal pattern.

We could couch it thus:

If the testimony is dangerous, render the testifier ridiculous.

The Metamorphosis of David Shayler is discussed in a DPF thread here (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1837-Call-me-Delores-says-MI5-whistleblower-David-Shayler&).

It is discussed in the context of the attempt to discredit murdered MI6 agent Gareth Williams in the thread dedicated to his sad demise, particularly in posts #111-115 here (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4437-Police-find-body-in-bag-at-MI6-man-s-London-flat/page12).

Seamus Coogan
04-27-2012, 09:45 AM
Seamus - I have many things to say, but let's start with the transformation of David Shayler into Dolores Dork, which follows a classic and spookily archetypal pattern.

We could couch it thus:

If the testimony is dangerous, render the testifier ridiculous.

The Metamorphosis of David Shayler is discussed in a DPF thread here (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1837-Call-me-Delores-says-MI5-whistleblower-David-Shayler&).

It is discussed in the context of the attempt to discredit murdered MI6 agent Gareth Williams in the thread dedicated to his sad demise, particularly in posts #111-115 here (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4437-Police-find-body-in-bag-at-MI6-man-s-London-flat/page12).#

I will have a definite look at all that. I really feel for the Shayler guy by the way. Due to space and time I can't really delve into that aspect of it all. But it's a very interesting angle worth covering by the looks.

Seamus Coogan
05-10-2012, 04:30 PM
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/05/princess-diana-debacle-part-ix-henri-paul/

If you want to prove conspiracy in the Diana case. Then looking at the dodgy toxicology tests is a place to start!!!!

Jan Klimkowski
05-10-2012, 06:17 PM
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/05/princess-diana-debacle-part-ix-henri-paul/

If you want to prove conspiracy in the Diana case. Then looking at the dodgy toxicology tests is a place to start!!!!

Ah, Seamus, now you're getting a little warmer.

Yes, the toxicology tests on Henri Paul are as credible as the official autopsy reports on JFK and his, ahem, missing or doppelgangered brain.

And yes, Henri Paul is not the simple drunk chauffeur of the official version, as we discussed many many moons ago:


The Paget Report and Martin Gregory have downplayed the point that the movers and shakers of the arms, criminal and intelligence worlds have regularly congregated in the building as a neutral meeting place for many years.

Al Fayed was the proprietor of the joint when the ‘October Surprise’ against Jimmy Carter was formulated there by arms dealers and CIA stooges like George Bush (7), and a number of other scandalous deals have gone down there worthy of a novel (8).

By all accounts, Fayed had bugged the Ritz intensively and probably had some knowledge of all of this. Thus, Gregory’s and the Paget Report’s comments that Paul had never had contact with anyone from MI6 is just as bizarre. Equally strange is the fact that, for all of his security, Al Fayed doesn’t seem to have ever captured Paul with any member of MI6. Yet for all this, the chances of Paul hanging out with MI6 agents (wittingly or not) in or near a place as immersed in mystery as the Ritz, is actually very high.


So, let's put our deep political hats on.

Let's speculate a little on the logistics.

Let's assume Diana was to be assassinated but it must look like an accident.

No public execution, as with JFK, but a ritual slaughter nevertheless.

Now, many coalface cops and detectives are honest people. They investigate crime honestly.

How can their investigations be closed down?

The trump card is always National Security. The arrival of the spooks, the imposition of boundaries where information requests by the investigation team are Denied because the details are Classified.

The Finders case, which I - along with others - personally investigated, is one such shining example.

The murder of Gareth Williams is another.

Henri Paul's intelligence background is clear to all who look.

As a Mechanic and Perfect Patsy.

Al Fayed's intelligence background is clear to all who look.

As a Mechanic and Useful Tool.

Trevor Rees-Jones was amnesiac for a decade.

And then there's Oswald Le Winter - see here (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4098-New-BP-Judge-Hughes-Connections-to-Wilson-Quadaffi-Bush-Lockerbie&).

Deep throat for Francovich.

Key source for Gladio and the October Surprize.

Filmed in silhouette against a picture window of dull greyness....

What makes a Perfect Patsy?

Now there's a deep political question.

Seamus Coogan
05-24-2012, 12:10 PM
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/05/princess-diana-debacle-part-ix-henri-paul/

If you want to prove conspiracy in the Diana case. Then looking at the dodgy toxicology tests is a place to start!!!!

Ah, Seamus, now you're getting a little warmer.

Yes, the toxicology tests on Henri Paul are as credible as the official autopsy reports on JFK and his, ahem, missing or doppelgangered brain.

And yes, Henri Paul is not the simple drunk chauffeur of the official version, as we discussed many many moons ago:


The Paget Report and Martin Gregory have downplayed the point that the movers and shakers of the arms, criminal and intelligence worlds have regularly congregated in the building as a neutral meeting place for many years.

Al Fayed was the proprietor of the joint when the ‘October Surprise’ against Jimmy Carter was formulated there by arms dealers and CIA stooges like George Bush (7), and a number of other scandalous deals have gone down there worthy of a novel (8).

By all accounts, Fayed had bugged the Ritz intensively and probably had some knowledge of all of this. Thus, Gregory’s and the Paget Report’s comments that Paul had never had contact with anyone from MI6 is just as bizarre. Equally strange is the fact that, for all of his security, Al Fayed doesn’t seem to have ever captured Paul with any member of MI6. Yet for all this, the chances of Paul hanging out with MI6 agents (wittingly or not) in or near a place as immersed in mystery as the Ritz, is actually very high.


So, let's put our deep political hats on.

Let's speculate a little on the logistics.

Let's assume Diana was to be assassinated but it must look like an accident.

No public execution, as with JFK, but a ritual slaughter nevertheless.

Now, many coalface cops and detectives are honest people. They investigate crime honestly.

How can their investigations be closed down?

The trump card is always National Security. The arrival of the spooks, the imposition of boundaries where information requests by the investigation team are Denied because the details are Classified.

The Finders case, which I - along with others - personally investigated, is one such shining example.

The murder of Gareth Williams is another.

Henri Paul's intelligence background is clear to all who look.

As a Mechanic and Perfect Patsy.

Al Fayed's intelligence background is clear to all who look.

As a Mechanic and Useful Tool.

Trevor Rees-Jones was amnesiac for a decade.

And then there's Oswald Le Winter - see here (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4098-New-BP-Judge-Hughes-Connections-to-Wilson-Quadaffi-Bush-Lockerbie&).

Deep throat for Francovich.

Key source for Gladio and the October Surprize.

Filmed in silhouette against a picture window of dull greyness....

What makes a Perfect Patsy?

Now there's a deep political question.

Cheers mate. I've been meaning to reply to all of this for a very long time. The bitch for me is that so much of my stuff is compressed in the can at the moment. LeWinter, oh yes the man is worthy of an article himself. I said as much in about Part VII I think mate! Once again fascinating dude. I think Rees Jones is a difficult case. I doubt we'll ever get it out of him what happened. There are some reports he's scared of fessing up, but hell he took a hell of a smack! As for your other pointers funnily enough I am looking into the McCann case at the moment (I am learning to always have something cooking). I've been looking into the McCann case since it started. It's something I am far more passionate about than Diana. Anyhow, you can see how honest cops can get their case shut down extremely quickly. That's stuck with me since I started out with the good ole JFK all those years ago! But if you have any direct statements of this happening I'd love to see them. Because they got hold of the case very quickly.

I think I have some four more pieces to go, what I think is important is the Alma Tunnel. The whole purpose of the excercise if a conspiracy was to off her and/or get her in that ambulance. I really think there's potentially a ton of deception and red herrings in the tunnel that night!

Charles Drago
05-24-2012, 12:21 PM
Milady Clarick de Winter ...

Lee Harvey Oswald ...

Oswald Le Winter ...

Charles Drago
05-24-2012, 12:23 PM
Previously unpublished -- by anyone -- musing:

Look for evidence of the doppelganger gambit at play in Diana's assassination.

Hint: Review eyewitness descriptions of the MB/Fiat/paparazzi motorcade.

Magda Hassan
05-24-2012, 12:28 PM
Milady Clarick de Winter ...

Lee Harvey Oswald ...

Oswald Le Winter ...
Don't forget the Mexicans and Jimmy Carter (?)

Seamus Coogan
05-24-2012, 12:43 PM
Previously unpublished -- by anyone -- musing:

Look for evidence of the doppelganger gambit at play in Diana's assassination.

Hint: Review eyewitness descriptions of the MB/Fiat/paparazzi motorcade.

Do you have the references to these CD. I'm currently trawling through the Paget Report!
Nothings really sticking out like a pair of dogs balls at the moment.In terms of dopplegangers.
The appearence however of what appears to be rescue services and ambulances really interests myself.

Charles Drago
05-24-2012, 01:04 PM
Some eyewitnesses describe a black MB and a white FU.

Some eyewitnesses describe a white MB and a black FU.

Seamus Coogan
05-24-2012, 01:38 PM
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
05-30-2012, 04:33 PM
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
06-01-2012, 11:15 PM
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
08-04-2015, 05:05 PM
I've never spent much time researching this subject, but this documentary is quite good:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-c1ouaehwg

Dawn Meredith
08-30-2016, 07:09 PM
I've never spent much time researching this subject, but this documentary is quite good:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-c1ouaehwg

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
08-30-2016, 11:22 PM
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/exposed-head-of-the-mi6-operation-that-killed-princess-diana-revealed-in-explosive-new-book#.V8YOFLU8yHk

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/jun/22/uk.afghanistan


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/2011/feb/18/envoy-saudi-bae-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 (https://www.theguardian.com/baefiles/page/0,,2095831,00.html) 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/business/baesystems) 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/saudiarabia) 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/newsbysector/industry/defence/8216172/BAE-Systems-timeline-of-bribery-allegations.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_20_John_Morgan.html

Dawn Meredith
08-31-2016, 12:42 PM
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
08-31-2016, 01:06 PM
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
09-01-2016, 12:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP_y1ts62Ts



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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-c1ouaehwg

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
09-01-2016, 05:44 AM
Thank you Marlene!