PDA

View Full Version : Prince Charles' wives and auto accidents



Myra Bronstein
10-24-2008, 04:54 AM
Does anyone else think this is interesting timing?

6/97-Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident and flees the scene in violation of British law:

'Britain's tabloids reported yesterday that Parker Bowles feared she might be kidnapped or attacked and had been trained by security officers to leave an accident immediately.

``I panicked out of sheer terror,'' The Mirror quoted Parker Bowles as saying. ``I have constantly been warned that one day I might be attacked and I thought this is what might have happened.'
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19970615/16650423.html

8/97-Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

In a related note, this looks like an interesting read:
http://books.google.com/books?id=c4-H3PZZQfYC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=LANDMINES+ban+england+diana&source=web&ots=RgoVUkMDH_&sig=6DUWeQx2ppK8GYLdNfPSlyETkfE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA191,M1

David Guyatt
11-02-2008, 02:57 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/177434.stm

Peter Lemkin
11-02-2008, 06:38 PM
Does anyone else think this is interesting timing?

6/97-Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident and flees the scene in violation of British law:

'Britain's tabloids reported yesterday that Parker Bowles feared she might be kidnapped or attacked and had been trained by security officers to leave an accident immediately.

``I panicked out of sheer terror,'' The Mirror quoted Parker Bowles as saying. ``I have constantly been warned that one day I might be attacked and I thought this is what might have happened.'
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19970615/16650423.html

8/97-Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

In a related note, this looks like an interesting read:
http://books.google.com/books?id=c4-H3PZZQfYC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=LANDMINES+ban+england+diana&source=web&ots=RgoVUkMDH_&sig=6DUWeQx2ppK8GYLdNfPSlyETkfE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA191,M1

A very quick look seems to indicate an interesting book. Thanks for that.

Charles Drago
11-02-2008, 07:02 PM
It is the best account to date and deserves a place in your deep politics library. The material on the Rottwieler's automotive misadventure is most important.

By the by, and speaking (or not) of the roles of doppelgangers in intel ops, you should be aware that consistent and independent eyewitness reports of a mirror motorcade that night should be studied closely.

How better to confuse the perceptions of witnesses and putative investigators than to run a Mercedes/paparazzi/Fiat "chase" down the final route in the moments immediately preceding the advance of Diana's caravan?

The phantom MB was, of course, painted white.

The phantom Fiat was, of course, painted black.

Myra Bronstein
11-03-2008, 03:20 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/177434.stm

That's interesting David. Is there some reason to believe the crown wanted to get rid of Sarah Ferguson's mother?

Charles Drago
11-03-2008, 03:39 AM
Myra,

I'm not answering for David, but I do wish to point out that, as is the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, false sponsors abound in the Diana scenario.

Let's learn our lessons from the blood, sweat, and tears expended on the study of President Kennedy's demise and concentrate exclusively on the "how" of Diana's demise until we can prove or disprove conspiracy.

The "who" will follow.

Myra Bronstein
11-03-2008, 03:44 AM
Myra,

I'm not answering for David, but I do wish to point out that, as is the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, false sponsors abound in the Diana scenario.

Let's learn our lessons from the blood, sweat, and tears expended on the study of President Kennedy's demise and concentrate exclusively on the "how" of Diana's demise until we can prove or disprove conspiracy.

The "who" will follow.

Well I guess we'll all concentrate on whatever we chose to concentrate on Charles.

Can you expand on the "false sponsors" statement? I don't know what you're saying.

Charles Drago
11-03-2008, 05:14 AM
The "likely suspects" referenced in the Diana investigation include (and I assume are not limited to) the Windsors, armaments (especially land mines) manufacturers, Middle Eastern types who benefit from hostilities, and even members of a religious sect who allegedly viewed Diana as the incarnate spirit of their nemesis.

Of course you may concentrate on anything you wish, Myra. But if you choose to answer the "how" and "who" and "why" questions of the Diana affair simultaneously, you choose to make the same mistakes that have plagued the JFK, RFK, and MLK investigations from their respective inceptions.

Until you establish how Diana died/was killed, you haven't the slightest chance of discovering the identities and motives of any perpetrators.

Myra Bronstein
11-03-2008, 06:04 AM
The "likely suspects" referenced in the Diana investigation include (and I assume are not limited to) the Windsors, armaments (especially land mines) manufacturers, Middle Eastern types who benefit from hostilities, and even members of a religious sect who allegedly viewed Diana as the incarnate spirit of their nemesis.

Of course you may concentrate on anything you wish, Myra. But if you choose to answer the "how" and "who" and "why" questions of the Diana affair simultaneously, you choose to make the same mistakes that have plagued the JFK, RFK, and MLK investigations from their respective inceptions.

Until you establish how Diana died/was killed, you haven't the slightest chance of discovering the identities and motives of any perpetrators.

I don't know why you would assume that I have not focused on the how and why of Diana's murder. How very presumptuous. I've posted at length in another forum, long long ago, on the how and why. It is not a terribly complicated case, to summarize: Ongoing embarrassment to the crown from her outspokenness. Charles' frustration over his inability to marry the rottweiler. And then the two nails in her coffin--her very successful actions to get landmines banned when British Aerospace makes a fortune on them (and she was making progress convincing President Clinton to sign on to the ban), as well as her cavorting with a middle eastern man--the son of a man who the British aristocracy despised.

Charles Drago
11-03-2008, 01:33 PM
I'm not assuming anything about you, dear friend.

Sometimes a caveat is just a caveat.

Just so you're clear: My argument is that to focus on anything other than the "how" of Diana's death at the present stage of investigation is, for serious investigators in general and those who enjoy public visibility in particular, immensely counter-productive.

Myra Bronstein
11-03-2008, 06:56 PM
I'm not assuming anything about you, dear friend.

Sometimes a caveat is just a caveat.

Just so you're clear: My argument is that to focus on anything other than the "how" of Diana's death at the present stage of investigation is, for serious investigators in general and those who enjoy public visibility in particular, immensely counter-productive.

A caveat is good. A dear friend, like you, is especially good.
An admonishment about what to spend my time on is neither good nor especially good.

Charles Drago
11-03-2008, 07:57 PM
I admonish you to stop looking for non-existent admonishments.

Myra Bronstein
11-03-2008, 08:48 PM
I admonish you to stop looking for non-existent admonishments.

Oh yeah. Well as soon as I can think of a quick comeback I'll post it... no matter how long it takes.

David Guyatt
11-04-2008, 01:48 PM
Personally speaking, I am quite certain Diana was assassinated. Proof, of course, is a different thing.

A friend of mine who made several ITV3 documentaries about the "accident" was in little doubt that there was foul play - and was told or was hinted at - that those people involved with "defence of the Realm" were responsible.

I can imagine that a combination of reasons accrued to ensure compelling action was taken -- the land mines issue, embarrassing the royal family with a Muslim relationship etc. But not least I suspect, was her having effective psychological control over defining the attitudes of her two boys --- the king's-in-waiting.

David Guyatt
11-04-2008, 10:03 PM
Perhaps we should extend the title of this thread to "Prince Charles lovers and their accidents"?

"Kanga" died of Septicemia in November 1997.

The moral of the story appears to be fuck the King-to-be, get dumped and then die...

http://tooraktryon.blogspot.com/

18.10.08

Documentary, 4th November

Author of several biographies, Christopher Wilson
writes in The Daily Mail on
a documentary account of HRH and Dale Tryon.
Titled 'High Society' it
"reveals how, for a period during the 1970s, when both women were married to friends of his, HRH bounced from the bed of Camilla to that of Lady Tryon, then back again".

"Through it all, Kanga never gave any sign of her inner distress, and her outward calm and steely backbone were the talk of those who knew her: always a popular figure, she became more loved as she struggled with her physical ailments. Now, on the occasions that I met her, I was astonished by her lack of bitterness at the hand fate had dealt her.

Finally, after enduring all the agonising treatment associated with cancer, she was given the all-clear and, in 1996, checked herself into Farm Place, the fashionable rehab clinic, to rid herself of her dependence on painkillers, which had since become a necessary part of her life.

What happened next remains the subject of immense speculation to this day. While undergoing treatment there, Kanga fell from a high window, shattering her spine. As she lay in hospital recovering, she claimed to have been pushed, but it was always assumed that, emotional as she obviously was then, she had jumped.

In Channel 4's documentary, the actress Sarah Miles, a great friend of Kanga's, gives an electrifying account of what happened, as she describes Kanga insisting to her that she was indeed pushed.

She also recounts the family's bizarre response to this latest calamity, when Lord Tryon invited her to lunch, along with ten other hangers-on, to reassure her that Kanga wasn't pushed and had, in fact, fallen.

Barely a matter of weeks after her fall, Kanga was to be told by her husband that he wanted a divorce. Then came the final coup de grace - she was arrested on the drive to her country mansion and then sectioned under the Mental Health Act."

Myra Bronstein
11-06-2008, 05:55 AM
Perhaps we should extend the title of this thread to "Prince Charles lovers and their accidents"?

"Kanga" died of Septicemia in November 1997.

The moral of the story appears to be fuck the King-to-be, get dumped and then die...

That's been the moral since Henry VIII. Before Diana's death I thought that execution of royal consorts was ancient history. But nothing's changed.

Anyway, that's an interesting case David. I had never heard of Kanga before your post. There is much more information on her at the URL you provided.

She was only 47 when she died.

"She was Camilla Parker Bowles arch-rival when it came to the capture of Charles' heart, in the '70s. Camilla knew how to play at being a royal, as is testament to the fact she's shacked up with him now, but sadly, Dale didn't and found herself cold-shouldered by the royal circle. After years of poor mental health, she died in unusual circumstances at the age of 47."
http://www.tvscoop.tv/2008/10/set_the_video_p_37.html

Myra Bronstein
11-06-2008, 06:00 AM
...
What happened next remains the subject of immense speculation to this day. While undergoing treatment there, Kanga fell from a high window, shattering her spine. As she lay in hospital recovering, she claimed to have been pushed, but it was always assumed that, emotional as she obviously was then, she had jumped.

In Channel 4's documentary, the actress Sarah Miles, a great friend of Kanga's, gives an electrifying account of what happened, as she describes Kanga insisting to her that she was indeed pushed.

She also recounts the family's bizarre response to this latest calamity, when Lord Tryon invited her to lunch, along with ten other hangers-on, to reassure her that Kanga wasn't pushed and had, in fact, fallen....

Supposedly the "fall" was from a first floor window.
http://tooraktryon.blogspot.com/
That would be kind of a lame murder attempt.
Though I suppose it'd be a decent way to threaten someone.

Myra Bronstein
11-06-2008, 06:27 AM
Um, so to summarize:

6/97-Charles' mistress Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident.

8/97-Charles' ex wife Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

11/97-Charles' ex mistress Kanga Tryon dies.

That's quite a time line.

Myra Bronstein
11-06-2008, 06:38 AM
David, Do you know if it's true that shortly before Kanga's death she said she would publicize letters from Charles?

David Guyatt
11-06-2008, 07:14 PM
I hadn't heard that Myra, but death via lost letters seems to be a chronic condition that surrounds Charlie's femme fatales.

Obviously a coincidence.

Never write a letter about a leg-over, I say. And if you receive one, burn it.

Yours in filial wisdom,

Dr. David Offspring

PS, I'm still thinking about falling from a first floor window and breaking one's neck. Where's double-glazing when you need it, eh?

Myra Bronstein
11-06-2008, 09:19 PM
"Leg-over"???

How poetic. :rolleyes:

Dawn Meredith
11-07-2008, 01:40 PM
Most interewsting, I too had never heard of her. Doubtful she "fell" from the window.

Re Diana, also keep in mind that she wrote in her private diary, approximately six months before her demise, that she would be killed by her inlaws in a car accident. Her butler and confidant eventually shared this, and I saw that it was in her own hand writing. (It may have been a letter to him for safekeeping and not a diary, forget which). But she was DEFINATELY murdered.

CD is correct that "why" is what is important. Many possible reasons have been speculated upon. All relevent, and interesting.

Dawn

David Guyatt
11-07-2008, 06:52 PM
"Leg-over"???

How poetic. :rolleyes:

:D

There was a young lady from Dover,
Who asked a prince for a leg-over,
She gasped at his size,
He gasped at her thighs,
And in two shakes it was all over.

David Guyatt
11-07-2008, 07:32 PM
I defy anyone not to laugh at the following -- the legendary Brian Johnston cricket commentary.

Who says cricket isn't fun:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/sport/bestcommentary/

Click the link "listen to Jonathan Agnew and Brian Johnston"

Sit back and grin...

Myra Bronstein
11-11-2008, 06:50 AM
I defy anyone not to laugh at the following -- the legendary Brian Johnston cricket commentary.

Who says cricket isn't fun:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/sport/bestcommentary/

Click the link "listen to Jonathan Agnew and Brian Johnston"

Sit back and grin...

Oh dear.
:D
When an Englishman can't keep his composure during a cricket match, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

Paul Rigby
12-25-2014, 07:41 PM
Um, so to summarize:

6/97-Charles' mistress Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident.

8/97-Charles' ex wife Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

11/97-Charles' ex mistress Kanga Tryon dies.

That's quite a time line.

John Morgan names Princess Diana’s MI6 assassin on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio:

http://noliesradio.org/archives/93121

Second hour: John Morgan


A bombshell new book published this week names the MI6 officer who headed the operation team that carried out the assassination of Princess Diana in Paris in late-August 1997.

The book entitled How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth is the most complete evidence-based account yet published on the car crash in the Alma Tunnel that took the lives of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed.

Written by Australian author John Morgan – who has been researching the deaths for the past nine years – this book exposes Sherard Cowper-Coles, former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as the head of the assassination operation that orchestrated the car crash. Also revealed is substantial detail on how the murder was carried out – the naming of MI6 agents employed on the job and particulars about their respective roles.

The book reveals that Princess Diana was effectively murdered by deliberate mistreatment in her ambulance by people who were supposed to be saving her life. The author shows that this was a back-up plan which was automatically triggered after it became clear that Diana had survived the crash.

Morgan has spent years studying and assessing the huge amount of evidence pertaining to the Paris crash – including over 8,000 pages of inquest transcripts and official police investigative reports. He also analysed and published over 500 documents that were secretly supplied to him in 2010. The explosive material – which included the official post-mortem reports for both Diana and Dodi – came from within the Scotland Yard Paget investigation, but all 500 plus documents had been fraudulently withheld from the inquest jury in London.

How They Murdered Princess Diana covers the entire story of what occurred, including the massive post-crash cover-up conducted by British authorities. The book exposes the official 2007-8 inquest into the deaths as one of the most corrupt court investigations in England’s judicial history. This is the first time the complete story has been addressed in such chilling detail – a true account using the witnesses own words that will at times leave the reader shocked, aghast and breathless.

A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest has stated: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash … that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed.”

Speaking from his home in Brisbane Morgan – who features in a London play titled Truth Lies Diana starting in Charing Cross Theatre in January 2015 – says that the time is approaching when the parties who carried out the assassination must be brought to justice. He said that “the Paris crash was one of the most highly-coordinated inter-governmental operations ever carried out – and the ensuing cover-up over many years has been just as coordinated and just as sinister”. Morgan continued: “Many in the public now know that an assassination occurred on that night in Paris and are hopeful that there will be some justice and the perpetrators will be called to account, sooner rather than later”

http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/how-they-murdered-princess-diana.html

Product details
Paperback: 798 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (10 Dec 2014)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1505375061
ISBN-13: 978-1505375060

David Guyatt
12-26-2014, 08:05 AM
I always figured the ambulance did it. It took 1 1/2 hours for that ambulance to arrive at the chosen hospital, bypassing two others on the way. Does the author name the ambulance men, because they really are the ones with the bloody hands?

Anthony Thorne
12-26-2014, 10:48 AM
Morgan has multiple books out on this subject and by critical reputation seems to be the acknowledged expert on the matter.

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

http://www.amazon.com/Paris-London-Connection-Assassination-Princess-Diana/dp/1479252107/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Dawn Meredith
12-27-2014, 05:54 PM
Like with books on the JFK assassination, this Diana book- the one reviewed- appears to have been written to make conspiracy view look foolish, an old ploy for certain.
I daresay keeping up with the truth in all of these matters is a full -time avocation. And what is even more obvious is that there clearly has never been anything close to a "free press". "Operation Mockingbird" may have been coined in 1947, but its reality is as old as time itself. Which is why no justice is ever achieved.

Dawn

ps Good to see this this thread revived, Diana's murder has always been of interest on this forum.

Paul Rigby
01-11-2015, 06:16 PM
Truth, Lies, Diana, review: 'tricksy'
Dominic Cavendish gives his verdict on the controversial new play about the life and death of Diana, Princess of Wales and her relationship with James Hewitt

By Dominic Cavendish

12:12PM GMT 11 Jan 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/11337249/truth-lies-diana-review-princess-diana-james-hewitt-harry.html


After attracting huge amounts of publicity ahead of its opening night – thanks to reports that it contains revelations concerning James Hewitt – Truth, Lies, Diana, a new playing looking afresh at the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was exposed to the public for the first time on Saturday. Though critics aren’t being invited until the middle of next week, I’m afraid my curiosity got the better of me.

Has Jon Conway’s attempt to get us all talking again about the events of August 1997 got the news value it has been credited with? Has it got any value in fact?

I’ll have to say it straightaway: as a drama, it’s pretty patchy. Conway, writer as well as performer here, is playing a fictional alter-ego called Ray who decides to undertake a DIY investigation into Diana’s demise, talking to relevant parties, digging through existing material – in the hope, increasingly subject to paranoia and fear, of staging a play that opens up the subject to public debate.

The concept often feels too tricksy for its own good, creates a stop-start sense of gears being abruptly shifted and devotes too much of its time and energies to Ray’s art-meets-life worries about his wife’s fidelity and his own fragile state of mind.

But despite its convoluted quality, there’s no question that this is a little David of a play that the Goliath of the establishment would probably rather didn’t exist. The biggest headline-grabbing revelation of the night, already reported, involves a scene in which Hewitt (quoted verbatim, we’re told) is visited in Marbella, southern Spain. “Are you Prince Harry’s father?” he is asked. Hewitt (actor Fred Perry in fitting blazer with apt braying accent) maintains a dignified silence.

But a few minutes later he states “I started my relationship with Diana the year before Harry was born.” That’s a direct contradiction of what the former Household Cavalry officer has maintained in the past: in 2002 he was reported as saying: “Harry was already walking by the time my relationship with Diana began.”

What are we to make of that? As much or as little as we care to – there’s no explicit suggestion that he is Prince Harry’s father, but these few asides will serve to keep the rumour-mill going.

Conway’s primary interest, though, lies in piecing together sundry salient details about the events leading up to and after the crash. The picture formed gives an unnerving amount of plausibility to those who maintain that MI6 were involved and that there was a cover-up; given that Conway consulted the forensic and obsessive author John Morgan (also shown on stage), whose researched volumes include “The Assassination of Diana”, that’s not surprising.

But even if the theories have been aired before, and contested too, putting them on stage does give them a whole new lease of life.
There’s an enjoyable aspect to the night - a whole gallery of recognisable faces are brought to life by the cast of nine, including Mohamed Al-Fayed, Piers Morgan and Paul Burrell, along with some of those who held sway at the inquiry and inquest.

There’s a symbolic composite figure too of the shadowy “men in grey” who supposedly run things, and even the back of the Queen’s head, confiding warnings that some things are best left alone.

I suppose underlying it all is the pathos of what happened to Diana, and a sense that all these years later we can’t leave her be. Some will argue that this is a cheaply exploitative show but I think its heart is in the right place, trying to do justice by “the People’s Princess”.

Until Feb 14. Tickets: 0844 493 0650; charingcrosstheatre.co.uk

Paul Rigby
03-01-2015, 09:19 PM
Um, so to summarize:

6/97-Charles' mistress Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident.

8/97-Charles' ex wife Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

11/97-Charles' ex mistress Kanga Tryon dies.

That's quite a time line.

John Morgan names Princess Diana’s MI6 assassin on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio:

http://noliesradio.org/archives/93121

Second hour: John Morgan


A bombshell new book published this week names the MI6 officer who headed the operation team that carried out the assassination of Princess Diana in Paris in late-August 1997.

The book entitled How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth is the most complete evidence-based account yet published on the car crash in the Alma Tunnel that took the lives of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed.

Written by Australian author John Morgan – who has been researching the deaths for the past nine years – this book exposes Sherard Cowper-Coles, former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as the head of the assassination operation that orchestrated the car crash. Also revealed is substantial detail on how the murder was carried out – the naming of MI6 agents employed on the job and particulars about their respective roles.

The book reveals that Princess Diana was effectively murdered by deliberate mistreatment in her ambulance by people who were supposed to be saving her life. The author shows that this was a back-up plan which was automatically triggered after it became clear that Diana had survived the crash.

Morgan has spent years studying and assessing the huge amount of evidence pertaining to the Paris crash – including over 8,000 pages of inquest transcripts and official police investigative reports. He also analysed and published over 500 documents that were secretly supplied to him in 2010. The explosive material – which included the official post-mortem reports for both Diana and Dodi – came from within the Scotland Yard Paget investigation, but all 500 plus documents had been fraudulently withheld from the inquest jury in London.

How They Murdered Princess Diana covers the entire story of what occurred, including the massive post-crash cover-up conducted by British authorities. The book exposes the official 2007-8 inquest into the deaths as one of the most corrupt court investigations in England’s judicial history. This is the first time the complete story has been addressed in such chilling detail – a true account using the witnesses own words that will at times leave the reader shocked, aghast and breathless.

A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest has stated: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash … that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed.”

Speaking from his home in Brisbane Morgan – who features in a London play titled Truth Lies Diana starting in Charing Cross Theatre in January 2015 – says that the time is approaching when the parties who carried out the assassination must be brought to justice. He said that “the Paris crash was one of the most highly-coordinated inter-governmental operations ever carried out – and the ensuing cover-up over many years has been just as coordinated and just as sinister”. Morgan continued: “Many in the public now know that an assassination occurred on that night in Paris and are hopeful that there will be some justice and the perpetrators will be called to account, sooner rather than later”

http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/how-they-murdered-princess-diana.html

Product details
Paperback: 798 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (10 Dec 2014)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1505375061
ISBN-13: 978-1505375060

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015

The Death of Diana

Jim Fetzer's interview with John Morgan

The show begins with a look at the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in Paris, which provides the standard "mainstream media" account of the accident and its circumstances. It follows with an extensive interview with John Morgan, who is the world's leading expert on her death, which makes clear that this was not an automobile accident but a cleverly-planned assassination. John Morgan reveals that the crash in the tunnel appears to have been orchestrated by MI6 on the orders of senior British Royals. Princess Diana survived the crash but was brutally murdered by deliberate mistreatment in the ambulance by people who were supposed to be saving her. His book, How They Murdered Princess Diana, shows that the 2007-8 London inquest into the deaths – headed by Lord Justice Scott Baker – was one of the most inept and corrupt inquests in the history of the British judicial system. It also exposes the 2004-6 Scotland Yard Paget investigation as a farce dedicated to covering up what occurred rather than to uncovering truth. The perps never thought anyone would or could ever do a full investigation piecing it all together – but this is exactly what John Morgan has done. This event was a state-sponsored murder of one of the most beloved celebrities in the world, Diana, Princess of Wales.

http://s53.podbean.com/pb/bf41edf5a9e8f1c1e8b3b0aed3a7d478/54ef9395/data2/blogs60/722245/uploads/TheRealDealep19mp3.mp3

R.K. Locke
03-04-2015, 10:03 PM
Morgan is very interesting but I find Fetzer almost impossible to listen to. You can hear him breathing down the microphone the whole time and he has a tendency to come out with completely ridiculous shite as though it's established fact (LBJ, McCloy, Hoover etc. meeting the night before the assassination.)

Haven't listened to the Barrett show yet but I suspect that that will be a lot better.

Paul Rigby
03-04-2015, 11:30 PM
Morgan is very interesting but I find Fetzer almost impossible to listen to. You can hear him breathing down the microphone the whole time and he has a tendency to come out with completely ridiculous shite as though it's established fact (LBJ, McCloy, Hoover etc. meeting the night before the assassination.)

Haven't listened to the Barrett show yet but I suspect that that will be a lot better.

I know what you mean about Fetzer, but the interview is still worth the listen: How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth is the distillation of his previous, remarkably diligent, research and is unquestionably the gold standard on the subject. That I finished the book with profound reservations about his conclusions left me wondering whether I had failed to follow the evidence presented - the besetting sin - or that my doubts had real merit. One example.

Morgan is convinced that Diana's last journey saw her chased not by paparazzi, but rather an SAS-simulacrum, driving much more powerful bikes: he makes a compelling case for this and I rather suspect he's right. But is it really conceivable, as he insists, that the SAS hit squad would have entrusted the driving of the blocking Fiat Uno to James Adanson, the photographer, even if the latter role was essentially a cover for an MI6 asset of long-standing? Why entrust such a role to a figure from outside the special forces milieu? In the event that Henri Paul had either panicked or made the conscious decision to use the vastly superior weight, strength and speed of the Mercedes to smash the impeding Uno out the way, who would have reacted better - a special forces guy who had trained for such eventualities, or Adanson, a man with no obvious or suspected expertise in this sort of thing?

Now, it is perfectly conceivable that Morgan is right - and the eye-witness descriptions of the Uno driver and his distinctivly attired canine companion strongly suggest so - and that the answer lies in an accurate account of Adanson's career and background. But the evidence on that background is not available, or, at any rate, not adduced by Morgan; and I am left with my reservation.

Paul Rigby
03-06-2015, 07:21 AM
Why has Duchess of Cambridge not attended single state banquet since marrying Prince William?

By EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 00:00, 6 March 2015 | UPDATED: 01:08, 6 March 2015

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2981947/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-Duchess-Cambridge-not-attended-single-state-banquet-marrying-Prince-William.html


The Duchess of Cambridge didn’t attend the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh’s banquet for the President of Mexico, which included the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Princess Royal and the Duke of York.

Curiously, since marrying Prince William in 2011, Kate hasn’t attended a single state banquet. My source says: ‘It’s long been muttered about.
The official answer is that, as they are not full-time working royals, it’s not for them to do yet. It’s odd, though.’ Might Kate outshine the royals, as Diana did?

Paul Rigby
03-07-2015, 07:56 PM
Um, so to summarize:

6/97-Charles' mistress Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident.

8/97-Charles' ex wife Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

11/97-Charles' ex mistress Kanga Tryon dies.

That's quite a time line.

John Morgan names Princess Diana’s MI6 assassin on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio:

http://noliesradio.org/archives/93121

Second hour: John Morgan


A bombshell new book published this week names the MI6 officer who headed the operation team that carried out the assassination of Princess Diana in Paris in late-August 1997.

The book entitled How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth is the most complete evidence-based account yet published on the car crash in the Alma Tunnel that took the lives of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed.

Written by Australian author John Morgan – who has been researching the deaths for the past nine years – this book exposes Sherard Cowper-Coles, former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as the head of the assassination operation that orchestrated the car crash. Also revealed is substantial detail on how the murder was carried out – the naming of MI6 agents employed on the job and particulars about their respective roles.

The book reveals that Princess Diana was effectively murdered by deliberate mistreatment in her ambulance by people who were supposed to be saving her life. The author shows that this was a back-up plan which was automatically triggered after it became clear that Diana had survived the crash.

Morgan has spent years studying and assessing the huge amount of evidence pertaining to the Paris crash – including over 8,000 pages of inquest transcripts and official police investigative reports. He also analysed and published over 500 documents that were secretly supplied to him in 2010. The explosive material – which included the official post-mortem reports for both Diana and Dodi – came from within the Scotland Yard Paget investigation, but all 500 plus documents had been fraudulently withheld from the inquest jury in London.

How They Murdered Princess Diana covers the entire story of what occurred, including the massive post-crash cover-up conducted by British authorities. The book exposes the official 2007-8 inquest into the deaths as one of the most corrupt court investigations in England’s judicial history. This is the first time the complete story has been addressed in such chilling detail – a true account using the witnesses own words that will at times leave the reader shocked, aghast and breathless.

A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest has stated: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash … that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed.”

Speaking from his home in Brisbane Morgan – who features in a London play titled Truth Lies Diana starting in Charing Cross Theatre in January 2015 – says that the time is approaching when the parties who carried out the assassination must be brought to justice. He said that “the Paris crash was one of the most highly-coordinated inter-governmental operations ever carried out – and the ensuing cover-up over many years has been just as coordinated and just as sinister”. Morgan continued: “Many in the public now know that an assassination occurred on that night in Paris and are hopeful that there will be some justice and the perpetrators will be called to account, sooner rather than later”

http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/how-they-murdered-princess-diana.html

Product details
Paperback: 798 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (10 Dec 2014)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1505375061
ISBN-13: 978-1505375060

Published on 24 Jan 2015

Investigative writer John Morgan is interviewed live on Talk Radio Europe regarding his latest book, How They Murdered Princess Diana and also the West End play Truth Lies Diana currently showing at London's Charing Cross Theatre. Interviewer: Bill Padley. Interview date: Thursday, 22 January 2015.

John Morgan is viewed by many as the world's leading expert on the death of Diana. His investigation website is at www.princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly*.com


http://youtu.be/ZCXsVc_QWIw

Paul Rigby
03-07-2015, 08:13 PM
House of Mystery Radio Show: #15 Who Killed Princess Diana - interview with John Morgan

Published on 28 Feb 2015

Author and Journalist from Brisbane, Australia talks about his book series on the Mysterious Death of Princess Diana


http://youtu.be/1RvDZu_z_pA

Dawn Meredith
08-31-2016, 12:50 PM
Wow this guy is one major authority. Ten books on this case. I wonder if her sons think she was murdered. I recall reading something about that a few years ago.

Nineteen years today. Murder Inc.

Paul Rigby
08-31-2016, 01:06 PM
One of final interviews before death of Princess Diana assassination author John Morgan


http://youtu.be/lQlz5K63U7A

Paul Rigby
08-07-2017, 10:14 PM
Father of Princess Diana chauffeur makes damning claims: 'They were murdered'

Jean Paul claims members of Scotland Yard told him there was a secret plot to kill the princess.

By Alicia Adejobi
August 7, 2017 08:40 BST

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/father-princess-diana-chauffeur-makes-damning-claims-they-were-murdered-1633798


Princess Diana died because of a "secret" murder plot, according to the father of the man that chauffeured her on the night of the fatal crash. Henri Paul, acting head of security at the Ritz hotel in Paris, was driving the Mercedes that crashed on 31 August 1997, killing himself, the princess and her lover Dodi Fayed. Now, Henri's father Jean Paul has made damning claims suggesting they were murdered by the establishment.

An official inquest in 2008 ruled that the crash, which occurred in Paris' Alma Tunnel, was caused by the "gross negligence" of Henri, 41, who had alcohol in his system at the time of his death. However, his father is convinced the crash was no accident and even claims members of Scotland Yard told him about a "secret plot" to kill Princess Diana.

Speaking at his home in Lorient, Brittany, Jean told The Mirror: "Inside Scotland Yard, some believe there was a secret plot to kill Diana. Diana was killed and my son was killed. I believe they were both murdered. My son was simply *collateral damage of a plot to kill Diana and they killed him as well. I am 100% sure he [Henri] was not involved in this plot. He was too honourable and too honest."

The 85-year-old continued: "The English police came here to visit me and sat exactly where you are sitting now. Even inside Scotland Yard there are two sides. One believes there was a secret plot to kill Diana, the other believes it was a genuine accident. Even today there are too many classified secrets with this incident. I have no real hope to know what really happened. Perhaps it will be known in 30 or 50 years. But I would really like to know before I die. But I don't think it will happen."

Jean argues that the claims his son had been drinking and was intoxicated at the time of the incident, are false, stating: "He was not an alcoholic. He was not a drug addict. That's just lies."

He adds: "On that day there were over 20 autopsies that took place and it was easy for the authorities to switch blood samples to show alcohol was present in the sample they said was Henri's. That is what I believe happened."

Delving deeper into his conspiracy theory, Jean continued: "It took them over an hour to get Princess Diana to hospital and that is when they made arrangements to make up the story about the Fiat Uno, the white car. It was a diversion and a decoy. This was just one of the many things that do not add up. For example I still cannot believe a street cleaning vehicle was going through the tunnel cleaning up just a few hours after the accident. That is shocking."

Jean's comments come just weeks before the nation marks the 20th anniversary of Diana, Henri and Fayed's deaths.

Anthony Thorne
08-08-2017, 12:11 AM
I have a couple of Morgan's books on Kindle, and they're excellent. The intelligence figure he named as having run the plot in Paris to kill Diana was later made the UK Ambassador to Israel in September 2001, quite the month for it.