Diana
One Year Later
Posted August 25, 1998

There will be hordes of media presentations to take advantage of the huge audience for Diana, but everyone will skirt around the truth. Fortunately Mohammed Al-Fayed with deep pockets and a commitment to the memory of his son is out there speaking for truth. However, he represents a textbook example of how money, no matter how much of it, never holds a candle to those holding power.

Fortunately, the episode with Clinton will serve Dodi’s father’s interests, and also Diana’s and the welfare of the world public. However, the media and the public never go too deep. Clinton will ultimately resign. He has lost his place in history, and hasn’t much to look forward to for a man who reached the zenith and forgot that history never details a man well simply because he commands it. Only those that give, and sacrifice are given a place in history. Selfish self-serving men are soon forgotten or are remembered ill by history, as they always should be.

Keep an eye for the following. First, don’t trust any media release which fails to emphasize that Dr. Mailliez asserted he didn’t know he was treating Diana. The facts which have emerged have confirmed our perspective that Mailliez was surrounded by a slew of photographers, pushing and shoving, in a hysteria to photograph the world’s most well-known woman. For him to say that he didn’t know it was Diana until the next morning when opening the morning paper, equates with Clinton’s wagging his finger, and his wife releasing word that she didn’t know what was going on until the days before Clinton’s Grand Jury appearance.

Next, keep your eye out for mention of the most important witness: Brenda Wells. Again, the fact that she is never mentioned after all this time, shows the depth of the conspiracy to bury the truth. Every journalist looking for the ace story should have found her and cajoled her to speak about what she saw.

Regardless, we now have a pretty firm idea of what did happen. Remember well that regardless of whether our perspective of what happened is right or not, it is immaterial to our purpose and point: the evidence of foul play lies in the obfuscation of Brenda’s Wells testimony and what transpired between the accident site and the hospital.

As to Brenda Wells, she was going onto this slip road in front of the Alma tunnel, when she was forced off the road by the motorcycles involved in Diana's accident and death. What we now understand is that when this happened Diana’s car did not yet pass her. Seconds later, the Mercedes passed now followed by the two twoa motorcycles.

A Fiat car, whether black or white, had entered the main roadway into the Alma tunnel from the very same feeder roadway; literally seconds before Brenda Wells found herself there. This car was stationed ready to enter the tunnel before Diana’s Mercedes. Brenda Wells could see a little into the tunnel, but just as the Mercedes was entering the tunnel, one of the motocycles shot around the Mercedes, entered the tunnel, passed the Fiat and immediately after doing so the Fiat shifted to the left, just as the Mercedes, now, a hundred or so feet into the tunnel, intended to pass it.

Startled, Henri Paul instinctively shifted the car slightly left, and when intent on reacting to what the Fiat was doing, a blinding light intentionally emanated into Henri Paul’s eyes. This light was an advanced anti personnel light capable of blinding a person for a minute or more. Totally blinded, with a car he just shifted left, traveling at 60 mph, and agonizing from the pain from the anti personnel light, Henri Paul died attempting to brake the car to a stop. This blinding light was noted by several witnesses including Brenda Wells.

Next, keep an eye out for those people quickly entering into the tunnel and Mercedes. Who pulled Henri Paul off the horn? Who told those running down to the tunnel to leave? Who was seen going into and coming out of the car according to witness accounts? There was also a damaged motorcycle taken away. We never learned who this motorcycle purportedly belonged to, and whether it was occupied by one or two people and what happened to them!

Next of course is Mailliez’s slip that Diana was prescient as he put the mask over her mouth to shut her up. Next, when was the blood pressure taken, the result, and the consequent need to rush her to the hospital.

Next, who was on the ambulance and what did each person do during the one hour trip? Did anyone leave the ambulance? Was anything taken off the ambulance? How do two motorcycles lose an ambulance?

Now we also know there were two accompanying police cars. We want the identities of everyone on board the motorcycles and occupying the police cars (at any time).

Mohammed Al-Fayed has also confirmed an early concern regarding the tunnel cameras. For the first time in Parisian history all the cameras everywhere produced no recorded tape.

We of course had the Time story about Diana being pregnant, a story quickly and aggressively forgotten by everyone. For Time to have printed it, Time required confirming sources? Who were the sources. What exactly was said and by whom for Time to print the story?

Of course, this leads to the blood transfused. How much, what blood type? How much was on board when the ambulance left the tunnel, and how much is normally on an ambulance?

Let’s not forget the misinformation concerning the Mercedes, the need to cut the roof off to extract Diana, and of course the Police Chief’s and Interior Minister’s famous declaration that they were standing idly by at the hospital worried about where in the world could the ambulance be. Such high officials never picked up a phone to get the answer.

This web site in detail, day by the day, the first weeks and months after the tragedy set forth analyses which have proven frightfully accurate. While the Queen seems to have survived, most Brits now believe that there was a conspiracy regarding the accident and death of Diana.

Thus we are on first base. The media post Clinton must assess their future and responsibility and take on the truth regarding Diana. Mohammed Al-Fayed should employ his resources to take out a limited number of well positioned advertisements in world newspapers highlighting the issues never addressed or adequately answered.

If we can get rid of evil Clinton, we are on first base to discover the evil designs of those behind Diana’s death, and if successful then the truth regarding TWA Flight 800. Responsible people now unequivocally know that a missile took down that plane. They like we are appalled as to what has happened to domestic and world democracy that this story just as a host of other stories become intentionally obfuscated by the world media.

We are in a vortex for the future. As we said in our wind up statement, The End May Be Near, unless good men act now to stop evil from global victory, its long term success is assured. As we told you long ago, it is important that good prevail over Clinton, the failure of the media to cajole the truth regarding Diana, and the failure of American government to disclose the truth regarding TWA Flight 800. It attests that very powerful forces are in near total control, and that failure to act now, will have dire consequences. These evil people, seeking global control and domination, have wealth difficult to detail, but we know that if they fail in global domination they will fall back on enjoying wealth and power which suffice for even the most gluttonous of men and women. We trust we have served a purpose in explaining to them that recent successes in obtaining a stranglehold over the type of obtuse power they seek, requires them to reassess whether they can truly feel secure that they haven’t bit off far more that they can chew. The thought that it all might blow up in their faces will perhaps give them due reason to stand down.

Never for a minute underestimate the effect of your efforts in speaking for and writing about these issues. You may never receive formal proof that your efforts did change anything, but we assure you that they did, and you have stood with the angels in waging a last stance against major victory for the forces of unbridled evil.

If there is a single person we would herald regarding Bill Clinton it is Louis Freeh. You cannot thank this man enough for the sacrifices undertaken by him to see justice prevail. We look forward to identifying others who reach similar success with Dodi and Diana, and with regard to seeing the truth emerge regarding TWA Flight 800.

Also in our opinion deserving of public recognition and reward is Linda Tripp. Louis Freeh sacrificed and risked his career and reputation to do the right thing. He concluded that he was a pawn in Clinton’s abuse of power modus operandi, and being smart enough to see the forest from the trees, he showed the courage to do the right thing, and prevail. Linda Trip was in a far weaker position and risked her life and saved Monica Lewinsky’s. What people forget is that Tripp's "involvement" stemmed from what she witnessed regarding Vince Foster. While Starr himself could not prove anything with regard to Foster, Tripp like Starr, and inside Washington, knew that there is a great deal more to the Foster story. When Tripp then saw how Clinton was using 21 year old Lewinsky and insulting the nation to boot by doing his deeds in the Oval Office, then Tripp knew that the ONLY way she could hold credence was by taping Lewinsky. Moreover, by doing so, she protected herself and Lewinsky, for without the tapes, there would be nothing even assuming arguendo that Lewinsky and/or trip didn’t befall the same fate as Ron Brown and many other putative witnesses against the President. If anything happened to Tripp or Lewinsky with these tapes, it would equate to the dynamic existing if Diana died with a shown state of pregnancy. Linda Tripp knew and saw the power she was up against when she saw truth get buried with Vince Foster. Nearly everyone else would have closed their eyes and stood aside. Linda Tripp did not. She saw the vileness of the man elected to the Presidency, saw his abusive power and nefarious design, and like Louis Freeh, with far less power and resources, stood up against him. Bravo, bravo, bravo, Linda Tripp. You deserve grand public recognition and reward, and we look forward to the day you receive it.

Conclusion: Clinton - Diana - TWA Flight 800. The truth must emerge on all three for anyone to have any confidence that the danger has passed. Look all around you - look at the world weather - look at all that has changed in a short matter of time, and if you are willing to see the truth, you will recognize how important the just resolution of these three events are to a just and good future. Don't underestimate the importance of these events, the need to get rid of Clinton with full disclosure of what he has done; the need to confirm that Diana's death was no accident, with full discussion of the failure of the world media to properly cover the story, and finally to see the truth emerge regarding TWA Flight 800 and how government agents served those in power over their obligations to serve the welfare and interests of their country. Without this happening, the future will certainly be dire for us all. This is not hyperbole. It is truth.

MOHAMMED AL FAYED
The Sunday Times
June 14 1998

The other day I came face to face for the first time with the paparazzi who witnessed and contributed to the deaths of my beloved son Dodi and his beloved Princess Diana. I was in the Palais de Justice. It was not an easy meeting. The courtroom was stifling and yet in one sense there was also a terrible chill in the air. Diana's mother Frances Shand Kydd was sitting just 20ft away and yet, all day, her eyes never once met mine. She talked with the parents of the dead chauffeur Henri Paul and gave them her condolences but never spoke a word to me.

For eight hours we sat together, but worlds apart. A father who had lost a son and a mother who had lost a daughter. Mrs Shand Kydd's haughty refusal to recognise my existence made me both sad and very angry. Surely at a time like this one might have looked for some small sign of reconciliation, some mutual sharing of the awful burden of grief. But she is an English aristocrat and was too proud to recognise me. But I, too, am proud - proud to be a working-class Egyptian. Am I not entitled to any common respect?

Let us not forget that Mrs Shand Kydd was a woman who abandoned her daughter Diana at the age of six to go off with another man. When it came to the divorce, even Diana's maternal grandmother told the court that custody should go to her son-in-law rather than her own daughter

I was very angry that day in Paris and it boiled over out of court. The heat, tension and frustration that after nine-and-a-half months the truth behind the crash is still unclear were too much. If the crash was a straightforward road accident, then surely by now the French authorities would have concluded as much.

The fact is Judge Hervé Stéphan still has too many unanswered questions and too many conflicting accounts to have been able to construct a definitive account of what really happened. His approach has impressed me deeply. As a father himself, he is sympathetic and compassionate. He is also very thorough and meticulous. I place great faith in his investigation but sometimes wonder whether he really has all the powers needed to establish the truth. He has no way, for example, of investigating the possible involvement of any foreign intelligence agency.

My sole concern is to satisfy myself that what happened to that fine young couple last August was God's wish and nobody else's. I have made no secret of my fears that there was indeed a plot to get rid of Princess Diana and my dear son. To explain why, let me take you back to a dark day last September when my wife and I came home from the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. My children, who are a lively bunch, sat with us quietly in our family room overlooking Hyde Park. My wife spoke about the happy days during the summer when we had all been together with the princess, her sons and Dodi in the south of France. "You know," she said, "in all the years I knew Dodi, we never had a cross word." It is not many stepmothers who can say that of a stepson. It is a great comfort to me to know that at the time of their deaths, Dodi and the princess had never been happier and we as a family had never been on better terms. We all loved each other. I have always made it a rule never to let the sun go down on a quarrel with someone I love and I feel truly sorry for the Spencer family that there was so much unfinished business between them and their beloved youngest daughter at the time she was cruelly snatched from their love.

My eldest daughter, who is wise as only a 17-year-old can be, told me that she and her brothers and sister had gone down to Dodi's flat to watch the princess's cortege pass along Park Lane. "Do you think it was meant, Daddy, that Diana passed Dodi's home and then the mosque where you had the prayers for him?" she asked. "Yes," I said, "just as it was meant that their coffins passed each other, as Dodi left the mortuary in Hammersmith and Diana arrived, even though they had come home by different routes." At that moment, for the sake of my family and my own peace of mind, I decided I must do my best to find out what really caused those two wonderful people to be taken from us just as they were on the brink of a new life together.

Make no mistake, they were about to become engaged. It is interesting to see the sort of people who would deny that. As her brother notably said from the pulpit at Westminster Abbey, the princess had at last found joy in her private life. I have no doubt that on her return to Britain, the princess would have discussed Dodi's proposal with her sons of whom she was immensely and rightly proud. Like any sons with their mother's welfare at heart, I feel sure they would have replied: "Whatever makes you happy, Mummy." The strength and cruelty of Establishment voices denying that theirs was true love strengthens my conviction that there were people in this country determined that the woman who had been ejected from the royal family and stripped of the title of Royal Highness should not be allowed to marry the son of the man whose disclosures about the improper conduct of some Tory MPs had helped to bring about that party's biggest defeat this century.

It was just a flirtation, they said, only a summer fling. That just goes to show how little they knew of the woman in whose friendship they preened themselves. The princess stood by Dodi even when he was being unfairly attacked in the media. She was staunch. They were a pair. They would not let malice destroy what was theirs alone. Yet, it was destroyed.

Oh, say the harsh voices, it was just a drunken driver going too fast. Perhaps, but say that's not so? Do we not owe it to them, to ourselves and to future generations to find out the full facts while the matter is still fresh in people's minds? That is all I am trying to do. For that I am attacked ferociously on a daily basis. Why are certain people so frightened of the truth? I am not, and if there is responsibility to bear, I shall bear it as I have borne my grief. The attacks on me will not work because I have already suffered more than I ever imagined I could stand and I have no interest in the ignorant opinions of newspapers.

Some have not even bothered to cross the Channel to investigate properly what caused the death of the woman they harassed for 18 years in the interests of sensation and circulation. Is that not extraordinary? Newspapers devote acres to trivia and attacks on people who cannot reply, but they virtually ignore the biggest story in the world almost on their doorstep. Why? Because the Establishment does not want to hear anything other than "Speed and Booze" with the blame, if possible, being put on me.

British newspapers are dedicated to the status quo and their proprietors are nearly all pillars of the Establishment. Even Private Eye is on the side of the haves, not the have-nots. Two distinguished Time magazine journalists, Tom Sancton and Scott MacLeod, found themselves attacked in the British press because they wrote a book which actually investigated the crash in compelling detail. ITN's court correspondent Nick Owen was attacked personally because he presented a programme that looked into some of the unanswered questions.

Journalists are in the business of disclosure and yet, in this instance alone, there is a force at work to stifle a thorough investigation of the outstanding matters. Why did it take one hour and 40 minutes to get the princess to hospital? Why did the doctor who initially attended her for 15 minutes say he did not know it was the princess until he heard it on CNN eight hours later? Why did he not go with her in the ambulance to the hospital? Why have some of the photographers failed to give up some of the pictures they shot? Why was there a break-in that night at the London home of a photographer who handles paparazzi pictures? Why have some of the paparazzi lied about their role in the chase? They were much closer than they have claimed and two motorcycles at the scene left at speed. Why have all the closed-circuit television cameras in that part of Paris produced not one frame of videotape? Why were the speed cameras on the route out of film and the traffic cameras not switched on? Why was the scene of the crash not preserved but reopened to traffic after a few hours? Where is the white Fiat Uno and who was inside it? What were they doing and how have they managed to make the car vanish, virtually impossible without skilled help? Why did British newspapers not send any photographers to Paris even though they had spent thousands of pounds tracking Dodi and the princess around the Mediterranean? Were they tipped off not to send and if so, by whom? There were huge sighs of relief in London that no British newspaper had taken part in the fatal pursuit through the darkened streets. Who was the person in the press group outside the hotel who was equipped like a news photographer? Nobody recognised him and, when asked, he said he was working for "The Mirror". Who were the two unidentified men mingling in the crowd who later sat in the hotel bar? They ordered in English, watching and listening in a marked manner.

How did Henri Paul get 20% carbon monoxide in his blood when my son had none? The journalist Tom Bower, who is hostile to me, says Henri Paul breathed in the fumes from the car exhaust. As Henri Paul's neck was broken, his death was probably instantaneous. Even had he managed to breathe for a short time, it could not account for such a high reading of toxic gas.

I am not a conspiracy nut and I am confident Judge Hervé Stéphan will provide definitive answers to these and other questions. It is because I do not want the conspiracy theorists making sport of this tragedy that I am insisting every point is answered. Why would anyone want to murder Dodi and the princess, I am asked? What could be the motive? The princess knew the forces ranged against her. She was clever and intuitive. She said: "One day I shall go up in a helicopter and I won't come down." She also said she would not go quietly.

People fail to see the facts in front of their eyes. Last summer, the princess was at the head and heart of the British Red Cross campaign to ban landmines worldwide. The press whipped up a story out of the fact that she was to attend a meeting in the Palace of Westminster. A Tory peer trotted out to denounce her visit and the poor girl had to defend herself by cellphone from the yacht Jonikal on her last holiday. The peer, a defence spokesman we have never heard of again, won and she pulled out of the meeting. That did not matter too much. What did matter is the change of policy by President Clinton who started out saying America could not defend South Korea without landmines but, after Diana spoke to Hillary Clinton, decided that landmines could be phased out after all. What has happened now? Where is the worldwide ban? Without the princess, it is forgotten.

The British Army has started destroying its stocks but elsewhere the good work started by the princess has stalled. If she had succeeded with landmines, what would have been next? Fragmentation grenades? Yes. Dumdum bullets? Absolutely. Napalm? About time, for goodness' sake. I do not know what the trade in landmines is worth but a figure of £500m a year would not surprise. The arms manufacturers can rest easy knowing that Diana will not be stopping their games now. Where is the proof? The point about having a secret service is that it does things secretly. What I do know is that this country has always had to have its enemies and if they are not readily available, the press will always oblige. Over the centuries there have been mad mullahs, exotic despots, even Boer farmers - any threat was good enough. After the fall of communism, there is no shortage of potential enemies to keep the arms trade in Bentleys. Vested interests are very powerful.

Some people might believe the security services are just overgrown Boy Scouts in pinstriped suits. The princess knew better. Who recorded and leaked the "Squidgy" tapes, allegedly a telephone conversation between the princess and James Gilbey? A retired bank manager was set up to take the blame. Though the tapes were broadcast through the ether four times, he failed to get a complete recording, but the full version was somehow made available to The Sun and played by that newspaper on a pay telephone line. Obviously, it was the security services at work.

Our fearless newspapers have never told their readers what really happened, and isn't that interesting? James Hewitt has said that he was threatened with death if he did not break off his affair with the princess. A police bodyguard of whom the princess was fond was returned to uniformed duties when his conduct displeased those in charge. He was knocked off his motorcycle and died. How many Metropolitan police motorcyclists have died like that since 1945? Not many, I bet. The princess was unaware of the tragedy until she was in the car with her husband going to an official engagement. "By the way," he said, "your friend has been killed."

All I want is for the prime minister to stand at the dispatch box to confirm that British intelligence was not involved during that weekend in Paris. I know intelligence matters are not generally discussed in the Commons, but in such an exceptional case, an exception must be made. Were Dodi and Diana being observed by any of the British embassy staff who have an intelligence function? Were their phone calls being monitored? If so, their plans for imminent engagement would have been known by those who had an interest in stopping it.

Imagine the situation: Diana and Dodi get married. They have two beautiful children. They spend their time between Malibu, Paris and London. The world still beats a path to Diana's door. Their glamour, looks and radiant happiness make a striking contrast with the House of Windsor. Their family life is an example of what love truly means.

The Establishment would have hated it. Just as it worked to keep the Duke and Duchess of Windsor away from these shores, it would have worked against Diana and Dodi. But her lustrous beauty and charm would have defeated its ploys. Public interest and press headlines would have been directed away from Buckingham Palace, with unknowable consequences. The Establishment has run this country for more than 300 years and it is not about to stop now. Its members run the country, not Tony Blair. If something needs to be done in what they consider the best interest of themselves and the country, it is done without needless reference to anyone. It is so much simpler if everything is deniable. What is not deniable is that the death of Diana was very convenient for some people. Have you noticed how some people are smiling more often these days? No more disputes, no wrangles, no inconvenient headlines? Everything is tidily tucked away. The ship of state sails on in majesty having dropped its unwanted passengers. I am not paranoid, I just see things as they are.

When the editor of the London Evening Standard, Max Hastings, a snob and xenophobe who began his campaign against me at The Daily Telegraph, stoops to publish a gratuitous two-page attack on my wife, who has played no part in this affair except as a gracious hostess to the princess, then I know that the Establishment has given orders to attack me by any means, fair or foul. I have no personal grudge against the royal family - it is the sinister powers of those who surround them that I believe present the great danger to society. Some of these people are hell-bent on shutting me up and making me a pariah.

In January this year, for example, I received a letter from the chairman of the Royal Windsor Horse Show abruptly ending the 16 years of sponsorship by Harrods, my London store. In my 12-year association I spent more than £10m making the show a fantastic event for the Queen. But suddenly, without any consultation, my generous and loyal support was cast aside. A couple of weeks ago, an insulting letter from the Royal Warrant Holders Association suggested that I could be demeaning the royal family by using Harrods notepaper with the royal crests to pursue "my much publicised dispute with Mr Tiny Rowland". Apart from this being factually incorrect I have never done anything which breaks the association's code. So why should I have been singled out for such a humiliating letter?

At every turn I am beset by petty, spiteful and malicious attempts to put me in my place. I have even been accused of matchmaking. It is laughable. I am quite good at commerce and I have other minor talents, but even my best friend would not claim that I have the power to make a 36-year-old woman and a 42-year-old man fall in love with each other. What tosh, but that shows the lengths my enemies will go to; in fact, when Dodi told me he intended to propose to Diana I urged him: "Slowly, slowly."

Despite the massive press campaign against me, 95% of people in a newspaper poll said they did not believe the deaths of Diana and Dodi were an accident and outside this country virtually nobody believes it. That is why the Establishment is so scared of me. I am used to being disliked because I tell the truth.

Though a cabinet minister, Jonathan Aitken, lied to the cabinet secretary and was believed for a time, I told the truth and was vindicated. My disclosures led to the resignation of three Tory ministers, Aitken, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. I exposed those people in the public interest even though I knew I would be the target of the Establishment for evermore. I felt people had the right to know what had happened to me, a foreign investor who had brought £615m into this country in 1985 to buy House of Fraser and its flagship store, Harrods. The shareholders were paid a premium price and went on their way rejoicing. Only one man complained and he had sold me the shares which guaranteed my acquisition of the company. R W "Tiny" Rowland was a bad loser. Because I had what he wanted, he unleashed an unprecedented vendetta against me. All the problems I have had are directly attributable to my acquaintance with Tiny Rowland and his methods of doing business. Had I not met him and purchased his stake in House of Fraser, I would still be what I was in 1985, a happy and anonymous businessman with never a mention in the press, even though I had generated billions of pounds of business in the Gulf which had benefited British companies.

I do not regret buying Harrods because I love the store. I do regret meeting Mr Rowland, though, and trusting him. Without that deal perhaps none of this would ever have happened. However, I still believe Dodi and Diana would have met. I knew her father long before I acquired Harrods and I loved him as a brother and I continue to hold his widow, Raine, Countess Spencer in the highest regard.

I believe in God's will. I believe Diana and Dodi were meant for each other. I believe they are living in heaven together. I believe they are looking down on us and wish me to do my best to find out whether they died by God's will or the hand of malicious forces. As we sat after the funeral, my wife, who is Finnish, reminded me of how we had laughed from morning until night in St Tropez, the princess doubling over on occasions. My wife remembered a Finnish saying: "After too much laughter, tears." So it has been with us.

Comment: Perhaps Diana’s children are now old enough to speak about suspicions regarding their mother’s death. Perhaps this will be the impetus to get the world media on track in proffering truth rather than obfuscating issues connective to her death. Diana’s accident and death was on an open road in Paris. The deed was done for the world public to witness. It reflects the type of arrogance consistent with Charles asking Diana matter of factly whether she heard one of her boyfriends died. We all serve ourselves well if we assure that the deaths warranting respect and worth are not constricted to the world nobility. By allowing Diana’s death to go unanswered, we diminish her memory and ourselves.