Was Diana’s Extremely Convenient Death an Accident?

Jahtruth.net — Originally written 11/Dec/1998.

Last Updated 7/Sept/2013

Princess Diana looks back at pursuing paparazzi as Henri Paul (right) drives on to her fatal crash. Click to enlarge

Princess Diana said in her BBC TV interview that she was a problem for the British royal family because she was a rebel and REFUSED to go quietly. She went “with a bang” (in fact a crash; bang; wallop).

Diana was a big embarrassment to the royal family because she was the mother of the royal family’s future king and she was, to them, a loose cannon (totally out of their control) and the focus of the world media and world-attention.
Not only was she an embarrassment to them but every day she was becoming more of an embarrassment to them, with no end in sight. In fact, to the royal family and the System, the future must have looked ever more embarrassing and uncertain, which must have been causing them and the “System” a great deal of worry.
All of the EVIL that the “System” does to people, it does in the monarch’s name – “ON HER MAJESTY’S SERVICE” – all of the illegal man-made laws; judgements; parliament; economics – all to keep the “System” in control; “jobs for the boys – the old school TIE-fighters” for life and everyone else SLAVES to it. Discredit the monarchy by making it look ridiculous; evil or just ordinary and what would happen to the “System” and its control over the people?? Anarchy perhaps?? Or equality? The rich losing their positions of wealth and power, with equality and social-justice ensuing? The rich could not ever allow equality and social-justice to reign in the land, instead of them. That would never do, for them.
Diana told the doctor after the car-crash that she was 6 weeks pregnant (“Interviu” says 10 weeks), out of wedlock, and to an Egyptian, whose dad had embarrassed parliament; been refused British citizenship and who has powerful enemies in the British Hierarchy, who hate him. Could those enemies allow him to become close to and loved by the future king? What would happen to them in the future if they did?
The planned marriage to Dodi would have made the future king into the stepson of an Arab and a Muslim, which would not have pleased the Church of England, of whom the British Sovereign is the head. We know that already; because of Charles.
Dodi’s son, that Diana was reported to be expecting, would have been the future king’s half-brother and half Arab and a Muslim. Diana herself was planning to become a Muslim. How would both factors have affected the future king; and the Church of England which is reputed to be the biggest and richest land-owner in Britain, £££££££/$$$$$$$?
Thousands of British people are homeless; some reduced to living in cardboard-boxes and shop-doorways; whilst the queen, who is head of the christian church and also the richest woman on Planet Earth; not only knows about it, but sees it and allows it to continue. Christ says that ALL rich people will burn in Hell-Fire (Luke 16:19-31; Matt. 19:24). How then is it possible; if the Church of England serves Christ; for the richest woman on Earth to be the head / leader of the Faith that says rich people are evil and will burn in Hell-Fire, and that he/she who would be the leader must be the servant of all (Matt. 20:25-28; 23:11-12)? It is totally illogical!!! The church obviously does not serve Christ; it serves mammon. “Know a tree by the fruit it bears – Matt. 7:16-21, by their fruits will you know whether they be good or evil.” (also, note well Deuteronomy 17:15-20 and that the British throne is the Throne of Israel.)
Princess Diana was planning to convert to Islam and to go to live in America and/or France and that would have caused great problems for the custody, visiting rights and safety of the future king. Could the system allow that to happen? Not to mention the emotional traumas and their effects on the future king’s mind. Would he prefer America or France and living there to living in Britain? What would happen if he did? In “Tinsel-town”, California; or Mrs. Wallace Simpson and the abdicated king Edward 8′s mansion in Paris, that Mohammed Al Fayed had bought for Diana and Dodi? The possibilities are endless and must have been very frightening to the British Monarchy and The Establishment.
To the “Monarchy” the future must have looked like a nightmare with anything possible, including its collapse. The only solution they would be praying for, as Diana said herself, would be that Diana would disappear from the scene: at which point all of their troubles would disappear with her, leaving Charles with undisputed custody of his children and free to legally remarry a virgin or a “Widow”. Camilla Parker-Bowles is not a widow. Should Mr. Parker-Bowles sleep with one eye open??
The accident (??) happened in France; which, if you wanted an accident to happen, would be the very best place for it to happen, for proximity, but outside of Britain. Paris would be perfect. The Parisians are well-noted for their erratic-driving and there is no love lost between the British and the French. With a Frenchman driving, it couldn’t be better. If the British were involved in the death, who could prove it?
The bodyguard was the only one wearing a safety-belt. Did he know something the others didn’t? It was his duty to protect Diana and if he considered that the circumstances made it necessary or prudent to wear his own safety-belt, then his first duty would have been to make sure Diana’s was fastened first, before his own. He did not do so. An over-sight?
There is new evidence (2011) that the reason Princess Diana was not wearing her seatbelt is because it was mysteriously, but very conveniently jammed in such a way as to render it unusable!
The bodyguard, we are told, is an ex-paratrooper. Working for the royal family? Most paratroopers are brave men, sworn to die for queen and country; if necessary.
In the very first reports of Princess Diana’s car-crash, on tape, there are, from the beginning of reports, to the next day at least, some taped news reports that have curious bits not talked about later, like how a bomb-sound was heard clearly, BEFORE the sound of crashing. But later those first witnesses were never used in subsequent news-coverage!
We are told that the driver was drunk. The bodyguard said he was not, or he would not have let him drive because he was responsible for Diana’s safety. The Ritz staff said he was not drunk and that he was not in the habit of drinking on duty and the Ritz video-footage shows Henri Paul looking sober, in the foyer of the Ritz Hotel. The body-guard says he was responsible for Diana’s safety, so why do the royals want to sue Mohammed Al Fayed, instead of their own employee: the body-guard?
The Ritz Management said that Henri Paul had been on special driving courses at Mercedes-Benz. Later we are told he was not licensed to drive this type of vehicle.
Why all these contradictions? The “Ministry of Dirty-Tricks”‘s dis-information to cloud the issue, perhaps?? Whose ministry? British, or French; or both together? Mohammed Al Fayed doesn’t trust the official investigation and is doing his own.
Mohammed Al Fayed said on television on 19/1/99 that the blood-samples from Henri Paul’s body have been tampered with because with the level of intoxicants that the authorities claim they found in them, Henri Paul would have been unable even to stand up.
Why, after the accident (?), was Diana kept in the Pont de l’Alma (Bridge of the Soul) Tunnel – the crash-site – for 90 minutes, instead of being transferred as quickly as possible to a hospital? It took 1 hour and 45 minutes after the accident had happened to get her to a hospital.
Why, when she was eventually taken to a hospital, was she taken extremely slowly, by the longest route, to the hospital which was the fifth farthest away, and why did the ambulance stop and wait, for 10 minutes, less than 800 yards from the hospital? What were they doing to her during those crucial 10 minutes? Making sure she would not survive?
A book has been published, in America, in which it is claimed, that, if Diana had been taken immediately to hospital, she would have survived. The French doctor who was first on the scene, Dr. Maillez, said Diana’s condition was, “Not catastrophic” and added “she did not seem desperate.”
Author Brian Desborough claims that Diana was bludgeoned to death with an oxygen-cylinder, in the Pont de l’Alma Tunnel – or in those 10 minutes that the ambulance was parked 800 yards from the hospital?
The ambulance and authorities controlling the situation after the crash were not British; they were all French. Why did they cause/allow the long delay? If it wasn’t an accident, was there collusion between the British and French secret services? If so, why would they collude, and, can we believe the autopsy results on Henri Paul, or trust the judge and investigators? Mohammed Al Fayed doesn’t. Should we? If it was an accident, why didn’t the French authorities rush Diana to hospital?

Continues at source …

Soldier’s claim SAS hit-squad ‘did kill Princess Diana’ is ‘utterly convincing’

John Twomey — Daily Express Sept 5, 2013

Diana death crash. click to enalrge

An SAS sniper’s claims that the elite regiment murdered Princess Diana are “utterly convincing”, police have been told. The former sniper’s estranged wife has informed Scotland Yard she is completely sure he is telling the truth.

Her total belief in Soldier N emerged as she was interviewed at length at a secret location.

She told Scotland Yard detectives how the veteran soldier had spoken about the involvement of an SAS hit-squad in the car-crash that killed Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed on several occasions.

Significantly, she said that the sergeant’s allegations came while they were on good terms and before their marriage had hit the rocks.

One source said: “This was not said to scare or threaten her. It came out when there was no marital strife and when they were still friends.

“She was utterly convinced he was telling the truth when he said the SAS was involved in Diana, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul’s deaths.”

Soldier N apparently claimed Diana and Dodi’s driver Henri Paul were blinded by an intense flash of light moments before he lost control of their Mercedes. The claim appears to support testimony from an ex-spy at the inquest into Diana and Dodi’s death.

The former MI6 agent told the hearing that he was aware of a colleague’s proposal to kill Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, by using a strobe light in a tunnel to distract his driver, causing a crash. He revealed the existence of a shadowy unit within the SAS known as “The Increment”, which comprises troops from the SAS and SBS for the purposes of carrying out lethal operations on behalf of MI6.

She was utterly convinced he was telling the truth when he said the SAS was involved in Diana and Dodi Al Fayed’s deaths.

Last week, Detective Chief Inspector Philip Easton and a Scotland Yard colleague travelled to a secret location to interview her. Mr. Easton, who worked on the Yard’s original inquiry into Diana’s death, is believed to have quizzed Soldier N’s estranged wife very closely.

She is said to have given a “compelling account” of what her husband had told her. She does not think the claims are too fantastic: “Not when you’re living with someone who is in the SAS.”

After the Diana allegations first surfaced, he was branded a “loose cannon”, who could not be believed, but Army friends have rallied round Soldier N.

The decorated special-forces veteran has been welcomed into the SAS Association – the exclusive club for former members of the elite unit.

Source

EXCLUSIVE: Cover-up scandal as vital evidence over Princess Diana’s car were not revealed

Giles Sheldrick — Daily Express August 27, 2013

VITAL evidence from the wreckage of the crash in which Princess Diana died was ignored by investigators, the Daily Express can reveal today.

French authorities failed to hand over a key part of the Mercedes from the Paris tragedy.

And an official report was omitted from inquiries into the 1997 crash – with clues highlighted by a top British investigator withheld from the inquest into Diana’s death.

World-renowned accident examiner David Price meticulously deconstructed the luxury car. But he told last night how he was “surprised” never to have been called to give evidence at the hearing. The shambolic handling of the initial investigation into the accident even saw parts of the car destroyed while in the possession of the French authorities.

But the most explosive revelation to emerge from his report was that a foot-long section of brake pipe – leading to the front right brake – was never handed over to British investigators, making it impossible to disprove tampering.

Caused by the explosion that was heard immediately before the crash? Part of “The Boston Brakes” technique?

The revelations come after claims Diana was killed by an elite team of SAS and MI6 agents on motorbikes acting on orders from Buckingham Palace.

Institute of Traffic Accident Investigators expert Mr. Price conducted a forensic examination, and his report was used by the authors of Operation Paget, the police probe into the fatal crash.

But the blunders cast fresh doubt on the credibility of official inquiries after Diana died alongside her Muslim lover Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul.

The vehicle’s brake fluid was found to contain a level of water that could have interfered with braking efficiency, but it was brushed off as post-crash contamination.

Its front right tyre contained “a considerable quantity of water”, which was never measured or analysed to determine its origin, potentially affecting the handling of the vehicle.

Reports that the car had been handling poorly before the crash were never recorded as part of Operation Paget, the inquiry led by Lord Stevens, which investigated conspiracy theories surrounding the accident.

Mr. Price, 55, who worked for the Forensic Science Service for 31 years, told the Daily Express from France last night: “It was a surprise I was not called to deal with some of these issues.

“The inquest spent a lot of time with witnesses who saw things and heard things, but it didn’t ask questions about the car itself. Issues were being raised such as brake-tampering, so I was surprised not to have been called.

“The frustrating thing for me is that my report is not freely available, because this was such a high-profile case and I’m not trying to hide anything.”

In his report he wrote: “I am not able to exclude the possibility of brake pipes having been cut prior to the incident, although I consider it highly unlikely that they had been, as it should have been readily obvious to the French investigators when they removed the ABS modulator.

Chauffeur Olivier Lafaye drove the car hours before the crash and reported the back end “slewing out” at speed. His comments were not recorded in Paget and he was not called at the inquest.

“Whilst I did not observe any signs of staining that I considered might have resulted from brake fluid having been ejected during use, I consider the extent of the damage and the existence of smashed oil-containing items, such as the engine, precluded me from being entirely certain.”

The report, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, showed the car’s Electronic Control Unit, responsible for the brakes, had a “fault” code stored.

Mr. Price wrote: “I consider it most probable that one or more wheels had skidded. I am not an expert in electronics and so I consider it probable the only persons who could provide expert evidence in the precise functioning of the units would be (Mercedes) design engineers.”

He added: “Only they (Mercedes Benz engineers who were denied access to the car) are likely to have knowledge of the precise operating parameters.” But Paget ignored this lead, simply stating: “David Price concluded that no additional testing was possible.

Paint taken from the tunnel and the car and its front right door were lost in an “unexplained fire” in 1999. Its front wing was also destroyed on the orders of a French judge in 2003.

Source

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.