Diana's Murder - Latest / Analysis

News & Views on All Topics
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: The Forest.

You know Mo' Al Fayed was at the Royal
wedding; basically admitting that his protestations
about his sons death are a psy-op.
Em no dude! Katie couric mistook the King of
Tonga for Mohammed al Fayed. CBS corrected her
moronic mistake later.

And on the eve of the Royal wedding he reiterated
his beliefs but also claiming that Prince William has
doubts about the official story too, claiming he has
letters from the prince expressing his 'struggle with


On the eve of the royal wedding, the
father of the man killed in the car crash with
the late Princess Diana is making new charges
about a palace conspiracy he claims led to the
death of his son Dodi.

Mohamed Al-Fayed, who has long claimed that
a conspiracy within the royal family plotted the
deaths of Princess Diana and his son, charged
Thursday that Diana's son William suspects
a palace plot as well

Admittance to a psy-op?? me thinks not :wink:
"I am convinced they were murdered
and will never stop fighting to prove
that," al-Fayed said
Mohammed refused to be videotaped for the interview
and it does appear he's intent on keeping a low profile
with the release of the film.

Makes sense!
The last thing Allen's film needs is some brit journo
winding up Mohammed and getting emotional angry
quotes out of him. I would say at this stage after
years of grieving for his son he's sick of his outbursts
being used as evidence that he is unstable and insane.
Unfortunately thats the culture we live in. They the
pseudo rationalists will use your emotion
or humanity against you!

A sociopathic media no doubt.
I can see through you.
Some people see you.
To me you're just see-thru
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:06 am

I did work that out straight after regarding him not being there, but couldn't delete the post. :-) As for William, I doubt very much he has any thoughts related to a conspiracy, as, he of course knows exactly why she was scarificed. Personally, I think the anti-Muslim murder plot is a psy-op, to keep people away from the fact that it was a ritual sacrifice, planned, probably before she was born. Check out the work of goroadachi.com There is a video about it too, by, I think, truthiracy1 on YT.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

UPDATE: As of 10th August, YouTube is blocking the Channel4 video,
so I've replaced it with above with the superior previous
NBC broadcast of the same material

The story that will never die has spawned a new chapter with
the release of the Diana: In Her Own Words documentary.

Princess Diana revealed 'the greatest love I've ever had'
was bodyguard Barry Mannakee in secret tapes

Rachel Roberts 4 hours ago

In tapes showed in the Channel 4 documentary Diana: In Her Own Words,
she sensationally claimed bodyguard Barry Mannakee was sacked from his
job and then “bumped off".

"When I was 24 or 25 I was deeply in love with someone who worked in
this environment [security],” she said.

"But then he was chucked out and he was killed.

"Eventually he had to go and then three weeks after he left he was killed
in a motorbike accident.

"He was the greatest love I've ever had, and that was a real killer."

Mr Mannakee, a police officer, was her bodyguard for about a year in the
mid-1980s before he transferred to the Diplomatic Protection Group in London.

The 39-year-old died in 1987 when a motorcycle being driven by a friend,
who survived, was involved in a collision with a car.


And the father of Mercedces driver Henri Paul
is again speaking out about the truth of all this:

'British police told me Princess Diana was murdered':
Death crash driver's dad claims son was 'collateral damage' in plot

BY ANDY LINES 22:18, 6 AUG 2017

The dad of Diana’s death crash driver Henri Paul claims UK police told him she was murdered. Jean, 85, said: “Inside Scotland Yard, some believe there was a secret plot to kill Diana.”

In an emotional interview at his home in Lorient, Brittany, Jean – who has studied the evidence and seen classified information surrounding the tragedy over the past 20 years – said: “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 was not involved in this plot. He was too honourable and too honest. 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.”..........

There were also ­allegations a mystery white Fiat Uno could have collided with Diana and Dodi’s car.

But frail Jean said: “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.”

Dodi’s dad Mohamed al Fayed also believes his son and Diana were murdered by an Establishment appalled at the idea of having a Muslim wed a royal.

A friend of the Harrods owner reportedly said last week: “Mohamed remains confident that information will emerge confirming his belief that Dodi and Diana were deliberately killed by the security services.

“He always says, ‘My son was slaughtered’, and he believes that was because the Establishment would not allow a Muslim to be married to the woman who would be the mother of the future king.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fa ... r-10942998
That final quote is consistent with my own analysis.

Back on the 11 Dec 2006, I posted the following in this thread:
An Engagement with Death

Imagine the effect of Diana going out with some "muslimaniac", or even married to some "muslimaniac" like Dodi al-Fayed....

...just as the 9/11 "anti-Muslim Crusade" was gearing up to drop thousands of tons of bombs on Muslim women and children. Including napalm and even cluster bombs.

Imagine what Diana's stance on all this would have been. Imagine the UK anti-war resistance that would spring up as the most popular member of Britain's Royal Family took on the military-industrial establishment.

It would have made the invasion of Iraq impossible. It would have made the UK's involvement in the "crusade" impossible.

As I reported above:

Jeweler Alberto Repossi - who claims he sold Diana's lover Dodi Al Fayed
an engagement ring the day before the couple were killed
in a car crash
in Paris on August 31, 1997 - alleges he was put under pressure by
investigators to retract the statement he gave to Lord Stevens, who is
leading the inquiry.

When Diana picked out that engagement ring with Dodi, the prepared plan
was sanctioned and went into high gear. After a public announcement
of an engagement a hit would have been difficult --because the
suspicions of the British public would have make it a very risky move.
The Palace might have been burned. (I'm only half kidding.)

So, Diana picked out an engagement ring, and was dead within 24hrs.
The following article
speaks for itself:

"Queen showed no signs of suppressed sadness."

Body expert’s BOMBSHELL verdict on Queen’s
infamous Diana death TV speech to the nation

Nicholas Bieber — The Daily Star April 6, 2017

Her Majesty addressed the public on live TV – for only the second time in her reign – just five days after Diana died in a car crash in Paris on August 31, 1997.

She had come under immense pressure from furious members of the public who accused her of “hiding away” at her Balmoral home following the shock news.

The Queen also faced anger for her apparent “business-as-usual” message by taking Princes William and Harry to church just hours after being told their mum had died.

So in a shock move to recapture the hearts of the nation, she returned to Buckingham Palace on September 5, 1997 to face the public and make her live broadcast.

Her speech, in front of a backdrop of thousands of people making the pilgrimage to London to remember Diana, was spoken “from her heart”, “as your Queen and as a grandmother”.

She paid tribute to the “People’s Princess” by speaking of her “admiration and respect” for her, adding: “We have all been trying in our different ways to cope.

“It is not easy to express a sense of loss, since the initial shock is often succeeded by a mixture of other feelings: disbelief, incomprehension, anger – and concern for those who remain.”

She also said: “She was an exceptional and gifted human being. In good times and bad, she never lost her capacity to smile and laugh, nor to inspire others with her warmth and kindness.”


NO SADNESS": A body behaviour expert has said the Queen showed no signs of suppressed sadness. click to enlarge

But Daily Star Online has made a series of shocking discoveries after asking body behaviour expert Patti Wood to analyse the three minute video ahead of the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death.

Patti, who has studied Diana’s body language on many occasions, revealed that the Queen actually appears to be “angry” rather than sad, and was “hiding her true emotions”.

She told us: “The lack of sadness cues, like downward-turned edges of the mouth and downward gaze and drooping cheeks are absent.

“What I see is underlying anger, see the tightness at the mouth, how if you freeze a frame you see the lips locked straight across in suppression rather than turned down in sadness.

“Note the steel locked glare she holds for most of the speech. Note how she hits the word, ‘anger’ in her list of emotions in such a strikingly and strong way vocally, as if there is a physical punch added.

“When she says ‘We have all felt those emotions in the last few days,’ at time code :36 she presses her lips together and cleanses her tongue, (typically a sign to hide her emotions) then purses her lips with distaste, which could indicate that she herself did not feel those emotions, or that she feels those emotions are not appropriate for people ‘we’ to feel.”

Patti also told Daily Star Online she found the Queen often “pressed her lips together with distaste”.

She said: “You would expect suppressed sadness in a lost family member, I don’t see suppressed sadness.

“Even when she says, ‘I say from my heart’ she presses her lips together with distaste. I read that as distaste for having to say anything about Diana from her heart.

“She brings her head back and holding her chin high is royal ‘uppityness’.

“Then she as if looking down from a height on as she says, ‘First I want to pay tribute to Diana myself’. That look says, she is looking down on symbolically rather than looking up to Diana as she makes the statements.”............

And just for the record I'm archiving the affidavit
of Richard Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, because it is
no longer on the alfayed website which is offline.

Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson to Judge Herve Stephan

I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva, Switzerland hereby declare:

1. I firmly believe that there exist documents held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would yield important new evidence into the cause and circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in August 1997.

2. I was employed by MI6 between September 1991 and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents that I believe would provide new evidence and new leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard various rumours, which though I was not able to see supporting documents I am confident were based on solid fact.

3. In 1992, I was working in the Eastern European Controllerate of MI6 and I was peripherally involved in a large and complicated operation to smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union. During 1992, I spent several days reading the substantial files on this operation. These files contain a wide miscellany of contact notes, telegrams, intelligence reports, photographs etc, from which it was possible to build up a detailed understanding of the operation. The operation involved a large cast of officers and agents of MI6. On more than one occasion, meetings between various figures in the operation took place at the Ritz Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There were in the file several intelligence reports on these meetings, which had been written by one of the MI6 officers based in Paris at the time (identified in the file only by a coded designation).

The source of the information was an informant in the Ritz Hotel, who again was identified in the files only by a code number. The MI6 officer paid the informant in cash for his information. I became curious to learn more about the identity of this particular informant, because his number cropped up several times and he seemed to have extremely good access to the goings on in the Ritz Hotel. I therefore ordered this informants personal file from MI6's central file registry. When I read this new file, I was not at all surprised to learn that the informant was a security officer of the Ritz Hotel. Intelligence services always target the security officers of important hotels because they have such good access to intelligence. I remember, however, being mildly surprised that the nationality of this informant was French, and this stuck in my memory, because it is rare that MI6 succeeds in recruiting a French informer.

I cannot claim that I remember from this reading of the file that the name of this person was Henri Paul, but I have no doubt with the benefit of hindsight that this was he. Although I did not subsequently come across Henri Paul again during my time in MI6, I am confident that the relationship between he and MI6 would have continued until his death, because MI6 would never willingly relinquish control over such a well-placed informant. I am sure that the personal file of Henri Paul will therefore contain notes of meetings between him and his MI6 controlling officer right up until the point of his death. I firmly believe that these files will contain evidence of crucial importance to the circumstances and causes of the incident that killed M. Paul, together with the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.

4. The most senior undeclared officer in the local MI6 station would normally control an informant of M. Paul's usefulness and seniority. Officers declared to the local counter-intelligence service (in this case the Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST) would not be used to control such an informant, because it might lead to the identity of the informant becoming known to the local intelligence services. In Paris at the time of M Paul's death, there were two relatively experienced but undeclared MI6 officers. The first was Mr Nicholas John Andrew LANGMAN, born 1960. The second was Mr Richard David SPEARMAN, again born in 1960.

I firmly believe that either one or both of these officers will be well acquainted with M Paul, and most probably also met M. Paul shortly before his death. I believe that either or both of these officers will have knowledge that will be of crucial importance in establishing the sequence of events leading up to the deaths of M. Paul, Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales. Mr Spearman in particular was an extremely well connected and influential officer, because he had been, prior to his appointment in Paris, the personal secretary to the Chief of MI6 Mr David SPEDDING. As such, he would have been privy to even the most confidential of MI6 operations. I believe that there may well be significance in the fact that Mr Spearman was posted to Paris in the month immediately before the deaths.

5. Later in 1992, as the civil war in the former Yugoslavia became increasingly topical, I started to work primarily on operations in Serbia. During this time, I became acquainted with Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank FISHWICK, born 1958, the MI6 officer who at the time was in charge of planning Balkan operations. During one meeting with Dr Fishwick, he casually showed to me a three-page document that on closer inspection turned out to be an outline plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic. The plan was fully typed, and attached to a yellow "minute board", signifying that this was a formal and accountable document. It will therefore still be in existence. Fishwick had annotated that the document be circulated to the following senior MI6 officers: Maurice KENDWRICK-PIERCEY, then head of Balkan operations, John RIDDE, then the security officer for Balkan operations, the SAS liaison officer to MI6 (designation MODA/SO, but I have forgotten his name), the head of the Eastern European Controllerate (then Richard FLETCHER) and finally Alan PETTY, the personal secretary to the then Chief of MI6, Colin McCOLL. This plan contained a political justification for the assassination of Milosevic, followed by three outline proposals on how to achieve this objective.

I firmly believe that the third of these scenarios contained information that could be useful in establishing the causes of death of Henri Paul, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed. This third scenario suggested that Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his personal limousine to crash. Dr Fishwick proposed to arrange the crash in a tunnel, because the proximity of concrete close to the road would ensure that the crash would be sufficiently violent to cause death or serious injury, and would also reduce the possibility that there might be independent, casual witnesses. Dr Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash might be to disorientate the chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device which is occasionally deployed by special forces to, for example, disorientate helicopter pilots or terrorists, and about which MI6 officers are briefed about during their training. In short, this scenario bore remarkable similarities to the circumstances and witness accounts of the crash that killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that this document should be yielded by MI6 to the Judge investigating these deaths, and would provide further leads that he could follow.

6. During my service in MI6, I also learnt unofficially and second-hand something of the links between MI6 and the Royal Household. MI6 are frequently and routinely asked by the Royal Household (usually via the Foreign Office) to provide intelligence on potential threats to members of the Royal Family whilst on overseas trips. This service would frequently extend to asking friendly intelligence services (such as the CIA) to place members of the Royal Family under discrete surveillance, ostensibly for their own protection. This was particularly the case for the Princess of Wales, who often insisted on doing without overt personal protection, even on overseas trips. Although contact between MI6 and the Royal Household was officially only via the Foreign Office,

I learnt while in MI6 that there was unofficial direct contact between certain senior and influential MI6 officers and senior members of the Royal Household. I did not see any official papers on this subject, but I am confident that the information is correct. I firmly believe that MI6 documents would yield substantial leads on the nature of their links with the Royal Household, and would yield vital information about MI6 surveillance on the Princess of Wales in the days leading to her death.

7. I also learnt while in MI6 that one of the "paparazzi" photographers who routinely followed the Princess of Wales was a member of "UKN", a small corps of part-time MI6 agents who provide miscellaneous services to MI6 such as surveillance and photography expertise. I do not know the identity of this photographer, or whether he was one of the photographers present at the time of the fatal incident. However, I am confident that examination of UKN records would yield the identity of this photographer, and would enable the inquest to eliminate or further investigate that potential line of enquiry.

8. On Friday August 28 1998, I gave much of this information to Judge Herve Stephan, the French investigative Judge in charge of the inquest into the accident. The lengths, which MI6, the CIA and the DST have taken to deter me giving this evidence and subsequently to stop me talking about it, suggests that they have something to hide.

9. On Friday 31 July 1998, shortly before my appointment with Judge Herve Stephan, the DST arrested me in my Paris hotel room. Although I have no record of violent conduct I was arrested with such ferocity and at gunpoint that I received a broken rib. I was taken to the headquarters of the DST, and interrogated for 38 hours.

Despite my repeated requests, I was never given any justification for the arrest and was not shown the arrest warrant. Even though I was released without charge, the DST confiscated from me my laptop computer and Psion organiser. They illegally gave these to MI6 who took them back to the UK. They were not returned for six months, which is illegal and caused me great inconvenience and financial cost.

10. On Friday 7th August 1998 I boarded a Qantas flight at Auckland International airport, New Zealand, for a flight to Sydney, Australia where I was due to give a television interview to the Australian Channel Nine television company. I was in my seat, awaiting take off, when an official boarded the plane and told me to get off. At the airbridge, he told me that the airline had received a fax "from Canberra" saying that there was a problem with my travel papers. I immediately asked to see the fax, but I was told that "it was not possible".

I believe that this is because it didn't exist. This action was a ploy to keep me in New Zealand so that the New Zealand police could take further action against me. I had been back in my Auckland hotel room for about half an hour when the New Zealand police and NZSIS, the New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service, raided me. After being detained and searched for about three hours, they eventually confiscated from me all my remaining computer equipment that the French DST had not succeeded in taking from me. Again, I didn't get some of these items back until six months later.

11. Moreover, shortly after I had given this evidence to Judge Stephan, I was invited to talk about this evidence in a live television interview on America's NBC television channel. I flew from Geneva to JFK airport on Sunday 30 August to give the interview in New York on the following Monday morning. Shortly after arrival at John F Kennedy airport, the captain of the Swiss Air flight told all passengers to return to their seats. Four US Immigration authority officers entered the plane, came straight to my seat, asked for my passport and identity, and then frogmarched me off the plane.

I was taken to the immigration detention centre, photographed, fingerprinted, manacled by my ankle to a chair for seven hours, served with deportation papers (exhibit 1) and then returned on the next available plane to Geneva. I was not allowed to make any telephone calls to the representatives of NBC awaiting me in the airport. The US Immigration Officers - who were all openly sympathetic to my situation and apologised for treating me so badly - openly admitted that they were acting under instructions from the CIA.

12. In January of this year, I booked a chalet in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for a ten day snowboarding holiday with my parents. I picked up my parents from Geneva airport in a hire car on the evening of January 8, and set off for the French border. At the French customs post, our car was stopped and I was detained. Four officers from the DST held me for four hours. At the end of this interview, I was served with the deportation papers below (exhibit 2), and ordered to return to Switzerland. Note that in the papers, my supposed destination has been changed from "Chamonix" to "Samoens". This is because when first questioned by a junior DST officer, I told him that my destination was "Chamonix". When a senior officer arrived an hour or so later, he crossed out the word and changed it to "Samoens", without ever even asking or confirming this with me. I believe this is because MI6 had told them of my true destination, having learnt the information through surveillance on my parent's telephone in the UK.

My banning from France is entirely illegal under European law. I have a British passport and am entitled to travel freely within the European Union. MI6 have "done a deal" with the DST to have me banned, and have not used any recognised legal mechanism to deny my rights to freedom of travel. I believe that the DST and MI6 have banned me from France because they wanted to prevent me from giving further evidence to Judge Stephan's inquest, which at the time, I was planning to do.

13. Whatever MI6s role in the events leading to the death of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul, I am absolutely certain that there is substantial evidence in their files that would provide crucial evidence in establishing the exact causes of this tragedy. I believe that they have gone to considerable lengths to obstruct the course of justice by interfering with my freedom of speech and travel, and this in my view confirms my belief that they have something to hide. I believe that the protection given to MI6 files under the Official Secrets Act should be set aside in the public interest in uncovering once and for all the truth behind these dramatic and historically momentous events.
Last edited by Fintan on Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:38 am, edited 6 times in total.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:43 am
Location: Inverness, Scotland

That affidavit is damning. Although none of its contents are new to me, the fact that it's the testimony of an M.I.6 insider means that it can't be dismissed.

However, I always wonder how likely it is that an individual can go up against the spooks and the Establishment, providing evidence of massive criminality on their part and yet live to tell the tale.

The fellow knows better than anyone what sort of people he's dealing with but despite having been repeatedly locked up, assaulted, deported and generally intimidated, he keeps rattling their cages. I'm pretty sure that I'd take the hint after the first broken rib.

Let's face it, it's reasonable to believe that people who can get away with rubbing out Diana would have no problem eliminating Richard Tomlinson if they concluded he's any kind of threat to them.
My real name is Gerry.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

Diana: The Night She Died (Conspiracy Documentary) | Real Stories

2,652,487 views 23 Jun 2018

Top class overview!
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Post Reply