While the above arouses one's senses as to the meaning of the many questions and issues raised by the Diana, cause of death and Diana, cause of accident web pages, the first concrete evidence of foul play, comes, in the same report, from Brenda Wells, a British secretary who circumstance had it was headed directly for the Alma tunnel from what we interpret was a secondary feeding road (slip-road which appears from the right just before the tunnel proper). The same news agency citing the Sunday Mirror wrote:

"Brenda Wells said that she was driving toward the Alma tunnel
when she was forced off the road by two motorbikes chasing a large
car and that she then saw a black car pass her."

If Brenda Wells' account is found true and confirmed by more details, the meaning is that the accident may not have been an accident at all. If Brenda Wells was deliberately stopped or impeded from entering the tunnel at a critical time window, allowing the black car to enter, when Wells was being stymied by two motorcycles from being at the right place at the wrong time, then it is circumstantial proof certain of deliberate, aforethought, foul play.

First evidences of foul play give new implications to the meaning of the issues and questions heretofore raised. With the collective consciousness of billions of people linked into the accident and death of Princess Diana, it must be made difficult for those behind the sinister deeds to escape, and it is certainly incumbent on all good men and women of conscience to help assure that the full truth emerges.

Update (September 24, 1997) :Brenda Wells may hold the story of the year and she seems to be missing!

First, let us directly quote from the story appearing 09/21/97 from Agence France-Presse: LONDON, Sept 21 (AFP) -"…The Sunday Mirror meanwhile quoted a British secretary living in Paris who said she had seen a dark-coloured car following Diana's Mercedes. Brenda Wells said that she was driving toward the Alma tunnel when she was forced off the road by two motorbikes chasing a large car and that she then saw a black car pass her."

The Associated Press story, the only U.S. report regarding Brenda Wells, bent the meaning of the AFP story. The AP wrote: "The Mirror also said that another British witness, Londoner Brenda Wells, 40, told investigators she was driving back from a party and was forced off the road by a motorbike pursuing a big black car. Then came the crash. 'The big car had come off the road. I stopped and five or six motorbikes arrived and started taking photographs. They were crying, 'It's Diana.' The newspaper quoted her as having testified."

It is obvious that the Associated Press report and the Agence France-Presse report say two different things. Thus, we quote directly from the Daily Mirror: "The whereabouts of a British secretary driving in the tunnel at the time of Diana's crash were also shrouded in mystery yesterday. London-born Brenda Wells, 40, told police how she was forced off the road by a motorbike following Diana's Mercedes at high speed. Ms. Wells also saw a dark-coloured car - possibly the Fiat Uno which has now become the focal point of the French probe into the crash. In her statement she claims: 'After a party with my friends, I was returning to my home. A motorbike with two men forced me off the road. It was following a big car. Afterwards in the tunnel there were very strong lights like flashes. After that, a black car arrived. The big car had come off the road. I stopped and five or six motorbikes arrived and started taking photographs. They were crying 'It's Diana.'.' Brenda's evidence calls into question initial claims that pursuing paparazzi were to blame. She makes the first mention of photographers AFTER (emphasis in original) the accident when 'five or six' paparazzi arrived and took pictures. But last night, despite extensive inquiries in the Paris suburb of Champigny sur Marne where she told police she lived, Brenda could not be located."

Brenda Wells may prove to become a witness of equal if not greater importance to Trevor Rees-Jones. If she was impeded from entering the tunnel, it is concrete circumstantial evidence of foul-play. The fact that she is missing and world news stands strangely silent as to what has already been reported, suggests that Brenda Wells is someone who must be located. That she cannot be found is highly disturbing. If she is under the "protection" or "custody" of French authorities, her "safety" would be further aided by letting the public so know.

Update (September 25, 1997):

Facts currently indicate complicity on the highest levels of government. There is a near total absence of news coverage regarding Brenda Wells. Moreover there is no discussion whatsoever it seems regarding the implications of the account given by Gary Hunter. When coupled with Diana's long ambulance ride and the shown complacency of high French officials, it would appear appropriate to highlight news stories which might suggest reasons for complicity and foul play.

Henri Paul cannot reply to the dispersions carelessly made about him and his nexus to the accident and death of Diana. As we have indicated all along, the directed focus on Henri Paul appears to be nothing other than misinformation and possibly further evidence of foul play, as discussed below.

The Chicago Tribune on July 15, 1997 wrote: The 36-year-old princess was pictured late Monday leaning over a yacht and reportedly telling the reporters: "You are going to get a big surprise, you'll see. You are going to get a big surprise with the next thing I do."

Time Magazine in doing a cover story on Diana on September 8^th wrote: "The courtship began correctly enough in mid-July, when the senior Al Fayed invited the princess and her two sons to vacation with his family at his villa in St.-Tropez. It may or may not have been mentioned that the younger Al Fayed would be there as well, but it was clearly understood. Tabloid reporters began scenting a story when they learned that Diana and her children would be spending a holiday at the home of the elder Al Fayed, a man sniffed at by the British elite. They descended, pursuing the two families wherever they went. Diana, no longer smothered by palace protocol, at last was able to give as good as she got. Racing up to reporters in a speedboat, she reportedly declared, "You are going to get a big surprise with the next thing I do." Diana later denied making the statement, but she did not disappoint. Rumors flew of an engagement to be announced this month. The following week she joined Al Fayed at Paris' Hotel Ritz--one of the many properties owned by his father--then left with the son for a five-day vacation aboard his family yacht in the Mediterranean."

People Magazine, prior to Diana's accident and death, wrote on August 25, 1997:

"Whoa, there!--we are talking about a woman who has, through the years, become the poster girl for Smart Princess, Dumb Choices. (Remember lover James Hewitt, who revealed all in a kiss-and-tell book?) The man on whose French-cuffed arm Diana now hangs may be charming, but he is no prince, and his father--though he may be as rich as Croesus--no king. A longtime friend of Di's own late father, Earl Spencer, Dodi's tycoon dad brought the pair together. A self-made billionaire who, in addition to Harrods, has a leasehold on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's Paris home (he is auctioning offthe contents in September at Sotheby's), Mohamed Al Fayed sponsors the Royal Windsor Horse Show, where he shares the Queen's box. Yet he has been denied British citizenship following questions about his financing of the Harrods purchase and has admitted paying Tory members of Parliament for political favors between 1987 and 1989, a move often credited with speeding the demise of John Major's government. Many believe that Al Fayed stoked his son's romantic flames as a way to strike back at a British establishment that has consistently rebuffed him. For such a man, says Brian Hoey, author of 13 books on the Windsors, "it would be the ultimate revenge to have the mother of the future king of England in the family.""

The damage and anger Diana was causing the Royal family is readily seen from a Meet the Press televised discussion following Diana's funeral:

MR. HITCHENS: But I don't see why we should be the megaphone for this kind of thing all the time. The desire to worship and to find a leader figure and grovel to it is not an absolutely unmixed blessing in human nature, OK? And there were some unpleasant aspects to it this week, for example, the attempt to blame our profession for the death and to shift attention away from the rather trashy and crooked family into which Diana was hoping to marry. Because we couldn't mention anything like that in the week of her canonization, but the fact is, she's been saved from joining the Al Fayed family and taking those boys into that. And that's what she was hoping to do. Now, this is not, in fact, sainthood. It's not sainthood.
MS. MATHER: We don't know that, Christopher. We have--we absolutely can't say that.
MR. HITCHENS: We're given every reason, we're encouraged to think that it's true, and certainly no one has challenged the Fayed family spokesman who has been groveled to by this network outside the gates of Buckingham Palace several times this week in the impression he gives that that's true.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's go to London.
MS. MATHER: I completely agree with you, that the Fayeds are a very controversial family. It was dubious company for the mother of the future king to keep. What has been extraordinary here is how that has been forgiven. I personally have written very critically about it in the Sunday Telegraph. But here all that's been swept away. There were many notes here behind us on the railings and at Kensington Palace which are to Diana and to Dodi. Perhaps they--the crowds in--there is sentimentality, and sentimentality isn't entirely a bad thing. That perhaps this sad and unhappy girl did at least have a happy few last weeks of her life.

Finally, we look to Libyan leader Muammer Gaddafi to openly express what others may be thinking. The following is from Reuters

TUNIS, Sept 23 (Reuters) - "....``(But) we say that Britain is running into an affair bigger than the Lockerbie one. We must put the affair to the (U.N.) Security Council. The accusation is directed at the Royal family, not at the British cabinet or the Labour party,'' he added. On September 2, Gaddafi accused Britain and France of ``executing'' Diana and her Egyptian companion, Dodi al-Fayed, ``because they were annoyed that an Arab man might marry a British princess.'' Britain's Foreign Office promptly rejected Gaddafi's remarks then as outrageous, absurd and distasteful -- but the conpiracy theory as outlined by Gaddafi quickly gained wide currency in the Arab world. …."

CONCLUSION: If billions of people could empathize and involve themselves in the death and funeral of Princess Diana, it is demeaning that when important witnesses and accounts are touched upon, that suddenly there is a total absence of news and follow up. It suggests pressures and forces from the highest level of government, not only in France, but in England and the United States as well. One has to consider different facets when faced with the facts displayed in these web pages. Has the Royal family called in markers and favors owed to them? Did the Royal family discount the intense interest in the death of one they seemed to detest? Doesn't the death of Diana resolve many problems for them? Isn't it an ironical bonus that her death also serves to now hold in bay the media and opens a door for laws to protect the Royal family from future incursions and discussions about them by the media? Did the Royal family see a marriage between Diana and Dodi as a device for both of them independently to invoke revenge against the Royals? How could she be allowed to marry a person, the son of a man which Britain has long denied citizenship? What if Diana now became pregnant? Would the future king of England have an Arab/Muslim step-father and half-brother? Wouldn't all this, among many other considerations, effectively undermine/compromise the Royal family, aside from causing conditions the Royal family would find personally insufferable and unable to live with? While you cannot hold the Royal family to blame because of the convenience of the death of Diana, one can fairly and seriously ponder whether there is a nexus between them and her death when suddenly forces emerge, so strong as to quell media, press and investigative interest in emerging facts and accounts. Simply said, under such apparent conditions, the potential nexus of the Royal family to Diana's death is fairly said to be as equally great as that of Henri Paul. It is also fair now to question whether in the seconds after Henri Paul's death there was any artificial intervention which predicated the high intoxication readings. We continue to await more from Trevor Rees-Jones, Gary Hunter and especially Brenda Wells. Where is she? Will she change or modify her story? Why wasn't a full account taken from her immediately? Why wasn't she interviewed for television? These web pages are replete with unanswered compelling questions and issues. If the media distances itself from the Diana story by seemingly losing interest in it, should you and the billions of other people involved with the accident and her death lose interest too? With all due respect, the answers to the open questions and issues are of much greater meaning to her memory than the Elton John song.

Postscript thought (09/25/97): It is important to emphasize why the facts don’t point to the driver, Henri Paul, or to the free lance photographers. We have covered the driver, Henri Paul. The reason we discount the free lance photographers, as an independent entity, is because of the evidence of complicity seemingly by the highest levels of government. This directs focus on the Royals as the third alternative potential nexus to the accident and death of Princess Diana. We emphasize accident AND death. We believe that the evidence to date supports that Diana may have lived had she been taken immediately to the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital just 4 miles, six kilometers, away. The delay and the misinformation generated was so obtuse and inexcusable as to only result in the conclusion that reasonable experienced men and women would themselves tend to believe it was intentional. Further, in view of current perspectives, the rejection of Daimler-Benz to help reconstruct and interpret the accident stands out as a red flag masking putative collusion and foul play. We wait to hear that Brenda Wells has been located and what she has to fully say now post her apparent disappearance and the decision of the media to sidestep discussion of the implications of what she and Gary Hunter have already said. Perhaps the Royals announcement that they are thinking of moving out of Buckingham Palace foreshadows the truth. While we started Page 1 with the idea that one must consider the ambulance ride as the nexus to Diana’s death, news and events since that time, point to actions and deeds beyond simple malfeasance.

Update (September 29, 1997): News reports from France indicate that French investigators are leaning toward finding alcohol and speed as the cause of the August 31^st accident ("Diana Probers Blame Speed, Drinking, not Paparazzi" Reuters). They cite these two factors as the two prevalent reasons for auto accidents in France, and indicate that this accident was another routine accident. If this in fact is their attitude in the final report, then the public has good reason to be highly cynical of it and the movement toward world government. When the media is restrained or controlled or dominated by government, when citizens of the world are denied the truth and the type of analysis we have presented here, then democracy itself is compromised and may become itself an illusion and victim. This is what concerned us regarding the U.S. government's conduct towards its own citizens regarding TWA Flight 800. Here the sole superpower cannot come forth with an explanation of an airplane accident several miles off its shore. The truth of it seems that they cannot hatch an acceptable lie which doesn't implicate major corporations who would refute it. While the government comes up with theory upon theory, the media and government circumvent the surest evidence of what did occur: radar images which were shown the day of the TWA Flight 800 tragedy and which thereafter disappeared, as apparently has Brenda Wells. Not only can we no longer find a singular reference to Brenda Wells but we cannot find any meaningful discussion of the radar images regarding TWA Flight 800. We ourselves saw these radar images, which the government calls an "anomaly." Unless anomalies appear 8 seconds before an implosion and disappear with it, and unless anomalies move past an airplane and then turn and head into it, and disappear in tandem with it, then it was what ironically French intelligence first reported: a missile. Moreover, the disdain for the public is further highlighted by the fact that the U.S. media totally circumvented any intense coverage of the many people who witnessed facts consistent with a missile. Similar no doubt to witnesses to the Diana accident, these witnesses are wondering what the heck is going on when what they have to say is disregarded or belittled. In fact one witness to the Princess Diana accident said he had to repeatedly call the police to tell them he had something to offer; he was told they had enough witnesses, and only after his insistence, they agreed to hear what he had to say {Jack/Robin Firestone}. If you want to more fully grasp the dynamics of what is going on, we have posted as a public service an entire novel for free on the Internet - Recapturing America, which book explains and teaches the dynamics and dangers behind the U.S. as the sole unchecked world superpower. The U.S. Constitution provided a system of government of checks and balances; however, the U.S. for the first time in history has mounted to a sole superpower status. Without checks and balances, we get the type of collusion we may have witnessed with the Princess Diana accident, we certainly get control of the media and the press, and we get dangers which compromise the rights and interests of U.S. citizens. For these reasons it is important that people everywhere speak out: not so much to dispel the French investigators, who are routinely inept and subject to compromise, but as to the failure of the media and press to provide the platform offered by these Diana web pages. While our web pages have enjoyed global interest, they don't carry the weight of the every day press and media to rouse people's attention and ire on a broad scale and to thereby generate political action.

CONCLUSION: We would think that Dodi Fayed's father will investigate this entire affair using the resources he has at his disposal. Do we need a person with vast wealth to guarantee pursuit of the truth? Do we have to fear governmental powers thwarting an investigation by a vastly powerful person? Trevor Rees-Jones takes on the power to singularly oppose a false report. Will his memory ever return? Does he fear it returning? Why did he put on a seat belt when Diana didn't? There is one piece of seemingly confirmed evidence that may jog Trevor Rees-Jones' memory. There is a picture showing Princess Diana turning around and looking out the back window at a motorcycle. What we believe she may have been doing is seeing if she recognized the motorcycle driver. She was aware - after the many years together - of the identity of aggressive photographers. Did Trevor Rees-Jones sense danger when Diana possibly said she did not recognize the person/persons on the motorcycle aggressively or suspiciously moving about the Mercedes? The free lance photographers said they were all far back from the car, while a string of witnesses saw two motorcycles with a black car traveling next to and/or in front of the Mercedes. Do the French investigators know who was in the black car and the three persons on the two motorcycles? If not, more than ever, Brenda Wells statements to date take on critical importance, and it would be frivolous to leak news that they are going to point to alcohol and speed (i.e. Henri Paul). If any investigator establishes that Brenda Wells was impeded from entering the tunnel, then the evidence points to a conclusion far different than "alcohol and speed." Where is Brenda Wells? Again, where is Brenda Wells? If Brenda Wells is a sham, or an illusion, then tell us. Otherwise, produce her!

Update(September 30, 1997): The misinformation spin masters were out in full force. A keen example was a British spokesman who said Britons were tired of the news regarding Diana and the newspapers were relegating stories to pages 6 and 7. Moreover, he said, the situation was clear. We had a highly intoxicated fellow who simply smashed up a car. Case closed. The truth of it all is that Britons, like most others throughout the world, are not tired of it, and in fact have grown more suspicious and rightfully so. As one professional accident analyst proffered today: the French permitted the accident scene to become polluted. The skid marks were critical to determining salient facts regarding what Henri Paul did and what effect, if any, a second car and two motorcycles may have had on Henri Paul's driving. Normally, this type of accident analysis is done immediately: within a week, at the latest, and steps are taken to preserve the accident site. Since the French are treating this accident as any other accident involving alcohol, it appears that they carry no remorse in opening up the roadway hours after the accident without preserving important evidence. To do the studies four weeks later is frivolous, this accident expert said, and it appeared he didn't even know about the immediate offer of Daimler-Benz to aid in such an analysis, Daimler-Benz obviously aware of the critical time window existing concurrent with the accident.

The public is treated with disdain: if enough spin masters say that everyone is losing interest and getting on with their lives; if they give the appearance the general public is thinking that it is a simple case of an "addicted" "chronic" alcoholic causing a horrific accident; if they further buttress it by having the press and media altogether ignore the accident and death of Diana, or by having the press put it on page 6 of the daily newspaper, then the spin masters conclude they will prevail, and the dupes (the public) will have been duped again.

However, we for one, put focus on where the press and media should be doing its jobs. To say that this accident is just an ordinary accident of a driver full of alcohol and drugs, belittles the facts established.

1. It involved the Princess of Wales.
   
2. It occurred just prior to an anticipated announcement of engagement to Dodi Fayed.
   
3. Her death eviscerated the steep problems which would have faced the Royals and England had she in fact married Dodi, or worse, become pregnant during the marriage.
   
4. The original focus should not have been on Henri Paul but the fact that Diana could have survived the accident.
   
5. The Police Chief for Paris, France and the Interior Minister for the country, jointly admitted that they were surprised at the inordinate delay in the ambulance delivering Diana to the hospital. Yet no one picked up a phone to call the ambulance.
   
6. No facts have been revealed as to who was on ambulance, or what treatment was rendered to Diana, and who made the decisions to take one hour to bring her to a hospital 6 kilometers from the accident site. It moreover is unlikely that the ambulance even carried sufficient amounts of blood she needed.
   
7. The ambulance was originally accompanied by two police motorcycles, who "lost" the ambulance.
   
8. Diana's suffered an injury to her left pulmonary vein, not to her aorta, which we understand is the type of injury normally sustained in a "deceleration" incident. She would have materially benefited if she was quickly delivered to the hospital and placed on a heart lung unit. Neither was done.
   
9. Misinformation was released that the Mercedes was armored to support why it took so long to get Diana to a hospital. Only after intense world interest and focus did salient truthful facts became available including that she could have been swiftly removed from the car and scene and whisked to a hospital where 25 specialists were awaiting her.
   
10. A picture was taken showing Diana not looking at the photographer taking the picture but at a motorcycle behind the car. To do so she had to fully turn around, and it would appear that she was trying to identify those on the motorcycle. Why?
    
11. Trevor Rees-Jones put on his seat belt. Diana was a devoted seat belt user. If the focus and concern was Henri Paul then they would have simply told him to stop the car or pull over. Diana and Dodi both could handle another confrontation with the press. They wouldn't risk their lives to allow someone driving erratically to continue.
    
12. To further attest that Henri Paul wasn't their concern, we have Brian Anderson seeing the Mercedes driving in a straight path. We have Trevor Rees-Jones remembering nothing unusual about Henri Paul. We have the fact that Henri Paul parked his car normally, a feat hard to do when highly intoxicated, thereafter walking normally, even speaking with both Dodi and Diana. Yet the contention is that this man was a chronic alcoholic and based on this contention we should all blindly accept it and go on with our lives.
    
13. We do not hear the fact that during the course of Henri Paul's chronic long term alcoholic condition he was a licensed pilot with 600 hours flying time. As one news story stated: "'Flying an aircraft through fog is not something you can do just hoping for the best,' Jean-Andre Cahazuc, his former instructor, told one French newspaper. 'It takes discipline, and Paul was the complete opposite of a clown.'"
    
14. While the media reports the French conducting one of the most thorough auto accident investigations in history, it is already a sham since they have polluted the opportunity to obtain critical evidence. Moreover, the investigators seem to discount and belittle the evidence of a Gary Hunter and Brenda Wells, while at the same time discouraging others to come forward. The press and media moreover circumvent any follow-up or discussion concerning what Wells in particular had to say. Brenda Wells is nowhere to be found, as far as we know.
    
15. It doesn't take an Einstein to recognize that the accident took place in an area where the chances of witnesses were minimized. Sheer coincidence? We don't think so, when the mystery black car and two motorcycles seemingly made their move in the tunnel, and Brenda Wells has effectively stated that she was stymied from entering the tunnel at this very critical time window.
    
16. How can the French leak and then confirm that they are bent on seeing here a routine accident caused by an "addicted" long term alcoholic until and unless they know the identity of the passengers on the motorcycles and in the mystery black car. To even assert blame under the circumstances and facts detailed above is an abomination of responsibility and accountability and an insult to the public.
    
17. There are obviously forces who want to derail intelligent thought, press coverage and investigation of the Diana accident and death. The investigation and press and media coverage of the Diana accident and death are vastly important to the future of all citizens of the world. If the press and media can be manipulated, if anyone wishing to pursue serious inquiry and discussion can be thwarted, then do such characteristics reflect democracy, or autocracy? In a democratic society and environment a free, open, and aggressively inquiring press and media is essential to offset the power and control of central government and control. In the new world order being successfully pursued this past decade plus, it is imperative to preserve the power and responsibilities of the press and media. If they fail here, as they have failed recently with TWA Flight 800, then one has to question on what principles and platform the evolving central government operates. Can people in an expanding capitalistic environment, where opportunity seemingly expands, at least for a period of time, recognize the erosion taking place to important democratic platforms. In the new world order, are elementary democratic precepts inherently in conflict with it? Is this conflict evidenced by the Diana's accident and death? We think so.

Conclusion: Focus on the key issues and questions. Not only will this pay homage to Diana above and beyond her brother's funeral eulogy and Elton John's song, but it will be important for citizens of the world to openly express that they will not be victims of misinformation, as other citizens were victimized by misinformation during other times in world history. History enforces the proposition that when people fall as victims of misinformation, it is usually the platform to far worse abuses. In America, a free open and aggressive press was an essential platform to democracy. It would be disappointing, in the time where America assumes a sole super power role, that we lose a main ingredient which made America great. Again, the original focus should have been on testimony whether Diana would have survived had she been taken to the hospital immediately. Working backwards from that original precept, it then becomes clear that one has to know the identity of those adjacent to the Mercedes and very carefully scrutinize the critical remarks of Brenda Wells. We never tire of asking, where is she? Can we hear what she has to say? Why not? We tire of hearing about Henri Paul. We await hearing what happened between the time of the accident and the time of Diana's death at the hospital. We await hearing about Brenda Wells. Isn't what we are asking equally if not far greater in importance than Henri Paul's claimed intoxication - which we have responded to; but nothing which concerns us has been addressed at all.

Update (October 7, 1997): Click here to go to the new Diana - open questions and issues web page.

Updates will continue on this web page. However, we open the new web page to highlight unresolved questions and issues.

Since our last update on September 30, 1997, French investigators have focused on the black Fiat Uno and moved away from Henri Paul. Further, as we expressed, world interest in Diana has not abated a bit since the accident.

Update ( October 9, 1997): ABC News: Paris, Oct. 9.

"Investigators probing the Paris crash in which Princess Diana died have concluded a second car was probably involved in the accident, a police official said today."

This must have seemed a given to those visiting our web pages. However, it doesn't mean that the investigation is moving toward finding the truth. In fact, in this update, we want to show that the investigation with the aid of major media continues with misinformation.

Time Magazine (10.13.97 issue):

"Time has put together an exclusive account of what is known at this point about the key questions facing the French magistrates."

Let's start out by saying that the Time article makes an important concession in accord with our September 14, 1997 Diana - Cause of Death web page:

"Horrific internal injuries may have doomed the princess from the moment of impact. But the amount of time that elapsed between the accident and her arrival at the hospital - more than 1 ½ hours - could have been a factor in sealing her fate."

The Time story also makes another satellite concession, this time toward our Diana - Cause of Accident web page of September 20, 1997:

" How could (Henri Paul) have escaped the attention of the people around him? Rees-Jones, interrogated before his departure for Britain this week, told investigators that Paul seemed 'just fine' that night. The other Fayed-family bodyguard on duty that night, Alexander ("Kez") Wingfield, 32, has also said Paul behaved normally and did not smell of alcohol even at close range. Both bodyguards told investigators that it would have been their duty to prevent Paul from driving had they had the slightest suspicion that he was drunk."

No doubt, especially true, since it was a new experience to be guarding both Dodi Fayed AND Diana: they both would have been especially alert.

While leaving the barn door open, Time shows it allegiance by ending its story:

"But when the work of the investigators is done-whatever the attendant circumstances, whatever the role of the paparazzi, whatever the truth about the second car-they are likely to determine that this was a road accident caused by very familiar villains: speed, alcohol and bad judgment. An all-to-ordinary tragedy for an uncommon princess."

Thus you can see that Time is touting the official line and failing to connect the dots connected by these web pages. Further, to bury an important witness like Brenda Wells Time alludes to "1,000 pages of testimony, much of it contradictory." Moreover, witnesses seem to arise to cause contradiction, an act not only in accord with misinformation, but also in accord with the vast resources of the putative players.

The Time magazine story however reveals two skids marks "...a 62 ft. long skid mark that swerves from the right into the left lane. A short distance beyond that is the beginning of a 105-ft. long skid mark that leads directly into the 13^th pillar. All of which tends to support the theory of an initial collision followed by a loss of control."

Not necessarily. Time itself says that a Fiat Uno would have little impact against a heavy powerful Mercedes. However, we need the details regarding the skid marks. Were they both confirmed from the Mercedes? Are they in accord with straight forward breaking or being pushed to the side/loss of control braking? Are they consistent with impact of only a Fiat? What type of lateral force is shown by the skid marks? These, among a host of other important questions, would have been concretely answered by Daimler-Benz. The Time magazine rendition is simply for public consumption and shows little attention to the broader and more compelling issues.

The ABC News account from above went on to say: " The white paint scratches were found on the right front end of the Mercedes, on the right rear-view mirror that was ripped away and several dozen yards away from where the Mercedes came to a halt."

The Time magazine analysis doesn't even touch upon the white Mercedes. It took a lot of effort for the French to admit to contact with a black Fiat Uno and the simplistic conclusion derivative from the contact (that it was involved in the accident). Now, the white paint couldn't have just been discovered, and what's the meaning of a white Mercedes seen shadowing the small black (Fiat Uno) car immediately after the accident: both cars, according to lawyer and British law firm partner Gary Hunter, suspiciously fleeing the scene? This is a lot more relevant to truth than the "pulsating" news accounts saying the French are checking all 112,000 Fiat Unos registered in the Paris area. Again, if the passengers weren't implicated in foul play, they would have filed suit already against the Ritz hotel.doubtful that the Moreover, if they are implicated in foul play, it is car will ever be found and moreover it is likely that both cars were not registered locally.

Now, we come to an intriguing segment of the Time magazine analysis: "Hailed by passerbys patrolling in the area, the first two police officers reached the scene within five minutes of the accident." Now, according to Time, these police officers said there were numerous people, mainly photographers, shooting through the open right rear door of the car. The photographers were "virulent, pushy" and wouldn't back off when told to do so. According to Time magazine: " Police and eyewitness reports and even the accounts of some of the photographers agree on this point: the paparazzi were in a state of excitement bordering on frenzy."

Now, why this may be important is that you like we have probably seen the routine televised interviews of Frederic Maillez, off duty emergency medical worker, our first "doctor" on the scene. He made it very clear that he battled through the smoke of the accident to treat Diana, whom he did not recognize, despite his statement: "I stopped my car and went to see. There were many people around and lots of panic. (Guardian: Reuters 09/02/97)." His male companion in the car Mark Budt stated while seated next to the doctor on CBS 48 Hours 09/11/97: "There were only a few bystanders at first. Then a dozen photographers appeared, snapping away." It took until October 6^th, but by then on NBC Dateline Dr. Maillez now supported the new position by saying; "and almost nobody was (at first) around the car…no more than 3-5 persons." While the 09/02/97 rendition is not consistent with Maillez and Budt being there early on (before the paparazzi), the second, which does make them among the first there, makes it difficult to accept the line that they didn't know it was Diana until the next morning when they read the paper. The paparazzi according to reports when they arrived were shouting: "It's Diana." Dr. Maillez of course may be hard of hearing and he may have assumed that 10-15 photographers usually go into a frenzy regarding a car accident on a Saturday evening - thus, we are somewhat suspicious of his position he didn't know it was Diana.

The critical window is sixty seconds after the accident. It does not appear that they were there within the first two minutes. Moreover, the "few bystanders" who were first there are critical and do the French have statements from all including the "fireman?" These are the witnesses which may have seen an intrusion into the Mercedes - and one or more may be able to identify those in the cars and motorcycles in issue.

Time further relays that the first call to emergency services was from a female calling from a cell phone, not Dr. Maillez, within the first minute of the accident. The media to now has pointed to Maillez as making the first call to emergency services. It was not Maillez - which would be further consistent with his original September 2^nd remarks.

According to Time: "Maillez said the paparazzi had not hindered him in his work. He left once the first emergency firefighters' unit arrived at 12:32 a.m., about seven minutes after the accident."

Finally, we have Time's account of the injuries and the ambulance ride:

"With her left pulmonary vein ripped, her heart was pumping blood by the quart into her chest cavity. That fact was not apparent to the first witnesses and medical workers on the scene. What they found was an elegantly coifed woman sitting on the floor of the car with her legs up on the rear seat, leaning against the back of the front passenger seat."

Time writes this as though Diana's hair dresser found her in the car. We are talking about emergency medical workers who are trained to diagnose trauma injuries. Time should realize that Dr. Maillez went for his medical bag and if she was "pumping blood by the quart into her chest cavity" at that time, her blood pressure would have been critical. So critical as to whisk her to the hospital immediately, with Dr. Maillez jumping up and down for swift action in such regard. However, not only did he not jump up and down, nor did he recognize his patient, but, according to Time:

"Once the emergency units arrived, it took them 30-45 minutes to extract Diana from the vehicle AND (emphasis ours) stabilize her with intubation, oxygen and treatment for shock. At 1:18 .am. she was placed in an ambulance, At the doctor's (we take it they are referring to the ambulance doctor) insistence, the ambulance proceeded slowly so as not to aggravate the injuries. Thus it took some 40 minutes to reach the Pitie-Salpetriere hospital instead of the usual 10 minutes. On arrival at 2:05 a.m., the princess was in cardiac arrest."

Wow! How easy it is to miss the real questions and issues we have raised. First, Time has to stay consistent with its own report. It said that the first emergency unit arrived at 12:32. Add 45 minutes and you have their asserted 1:18 time for being placed in an ambulance. However, if you add the other side of their stated range, 30 minutes you have 1:03 a.m. Now, first using their 1:18 a.m (in ambulance) time, and their 2:05 hospital arrival time you have 47 minutes in the ambulance. Tacking on the other side of the range, you have 62 minutes, or best said one hour in the ambulance. Moreover, from Dr. Maillez to Time's own account, Diana faced no impediment and there was no need to cut the roof to remove her from the car. In fact, Maillez companion Mark Budt said: "…the portion of the car that she was in, that quarter was basically undamaged."

Time magazine obfuscates exactly how long it took to extract Diana from the Mercedes and how long Diana was worked upon before entry into the the ambulance (and where). We don't want to quibble over what we think is a secondary matter, so let's focus on our point of one hour in the ambulance. If she had the injury stated, her blood pressure would have compelled an immediate delivery to the hospital "around the corner." Even assuming the ambulance doctor-whom we are sure will be portrayed as inept-still would have to have been professionally insane to claim concern over bumps etc. when transporting a famous figure with a team of doctors, specialists in trauma, awaiting her at the hospital. Thus in our questions and issues web page, the host of questions regarding what the heck was happening during the trip. Were those on the ambulance team sitting around with a level on Diana making sure the bumps on the road were not disturbing a level plane? If they were doing something, what were they doing? The entire dynamic of her death revolves about the questions and issues web page with the egregious mystery of the two police motorcycles, the ambulance's escort, losing the ambulance. It washes just as well as Dr. Maillez stating he didn't know it was Diana until reading the paper the next morning. Further, simple experience would support a contention that if the doctor didn't recognize her, he wouldn't admit it to avoid a lifetime of behind the back whispering regarding his lack of awareness and perception. Would you want Dr. Maillez treating you for trauma? If the truth emerges, there may be several reasons uncovered why you may not.

The air is foul. Just this evening U.S. media raised the double issue whether this is all worth the attention it is getting and secondly raised issue whether it was suspicious that Rees-Jones was whisked away by a Fayed helicopter and could we ever believe anything he has to say since we have to assume that Dodi's father as owner of the Ritz is going to put pressure on him not to say anything against his employer's interests. They also announced that French prosecutors were preparing charges against the Ritz. This was a foul showing of media manipulation. First, of all, it is ludicrous for charges ever to be brought under facts already established against Mr. Fayed or the Ritz. He lost his son. He expended untold resources to protect him all his life. His hotel wouldn't compromise this element, particularly with the Princess of Wales with him. It is shameful that the media could even proffer a scenario of Mr. Fayed trying to bend Rees-Jones to protect the Ritz Hotel, when the truth of the matter to anyone unbiased and with rudimentary intelligence, would be that the elder Fayed would give up the entire hotel for the truth of why and how his son died. You could get a taste of what the scene would be today if Dodi Fayed lived with Diana dying. The media can miss all the critical questions and issues, but simultaneously compound their bias and manipulation by daring to point blame at the Ritz and Mr. Fayed.

CONCLUSION: It seems that Time magazine and the truth would benefit from taking known facts to experts, medical to mechanical to accident experts, to ask them the meaning and implication of them. We are certain that the same questions and issues, and the implications we have presented, would ultimately be publicly raised by a rudimentary media effort to have experts rather than "anchormen" pursue the issues. The French investigation has moved away from Henri Paul to the Fiat car. Here they must also emphasize white Mercedes and two motorcycles with three people on them. Otherwise, you will get what one reporter quipped today "a white Fiat." With mounting pressure and tension from the ineptness of the investigation to date, the investigation should move to the ambulance, where we contend it should have started - if one is interested in investigating the truth behind her death. We want to hear from medical specialists of how unusual it is for there to have been damage to her left pulmonary vein; how obtuse and obscene the one hour trip to the hospital - we want to know Diana's blood pressure which even to French standards should have been monitored every ten minutes, if not continuously. We want to know how many people were on the ambulance, what they did, what they heard, whom they called, what they said, whether they gave Diana blood transfusions. This one hour trip to the hospital under the predicate of avoiding bumps is so many standard deviations off from basic professionalism that it borders on concrete proof of foul play as well. The first person every journalist and reporter spending time on this case should be is hollering for is Brenda Wells. Did she get lost among the "1,000 pages of testimony?" Brenda Wells if found, if not compromised, if confirming her original statements, is a key to unlock the door to truth. Otherwise, if she cannot be found, which speaks for itself, the key to truth also lies in our opinion in the one hour ambulance ride; in the questions and issues raised by us regarding same on our Diana - Questions and Issues web page (click here).

Opponents to Truth Showing First Signs of Desperation

Update (October 13, 1997): Part I: As we noted on these web pages some time ago, we look to the world press to bring the important salient issues regarding Diana's accident and death to the world public. We cannot pretend to even carry the weight of a single established newspaper. We only hope, via this medium at this point of time in history, to carry our message to influential minds who are in a position to press the failure of the world media to address the questions and issues regarding Princess Diana. Among our world readership, we will succeed if we reach even one courageous journalist who will press the questions and issues which need to be raised, resolved and brought to world attention. In this respect, perhaps we may be showing first signs of success.

We were truly shocked to read first thing this morning the following headline with story which we excerpt for you below:

DOCTOR SAYS DIANA'S HEART "RIPPED OUT OF PLACE."

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The first physician at the crash that killed Princess Diana said her injuries were so massive that even if the accident had happened in front of a hospital emergency room she could not have been saved, according to Newsweek magazine.

Dr. Frederic Mailliez, an emergency worker with SOS Medecins, said she had suffered a severe lesion to her pulmonary vein.

``Her heart had been ripped out of its place in her chest,'' Mailliez is quoted by Newsweek in the latest edition available Monday. ``There was no chance for her.''

Mailliez arrived at the scene three minutes after the accident occurred in a Paris tunnel on Aug. 31 (all emphasis in excerpt are ours).

What can we say but that the entire story looks like a defense to our last update. First, notice that the story contains the first recitation that Mailliez was there three minutes after the accident, as though it is an admission and acknowledgment that he has given conflicting accounts as to when he did first appear. To counter the position that the ambulance ride is the gateway to evidence of foul play, the story asserts almost a direct retort to our last update, via our questionable first to appear doctor, that she was in essence dead from the first due to the nature of her ultimately determined injury and physical condition.

You must understand that this posture is the only one to circle around the questions and issues we have raised. However, it shows desperation, because it conflicts with the many accounts of Diana status at the time, even that from Dr. Mailliez. If Diana's heart was beating, as it must have been for her to move around (some accounts) and talk (some accounts), then it was incumbent to bring her to the trauma hospital as quickly as possible. Even Newsweek appeared to register its opinion regarding Dr. Mailliez, the Reuters news story ending with:

Paparazzi photographs developed by French investigators show Diana with her eyes open apparently conscious and unhurt, with no sign of blood, according to Newsweek

The above is consistent with a Diana with a beating heart and an accident victim - from the dynamics of the crash and the death of two of the occupants - who needed immediate hospitalization and monitoring. Dr. Mailliez's new position, proffered more than thirty days after the accident, is tantamount to saying: "Diana was dead from the minute I saw her." He never said it, and moreover his accounts to date have been contradictory to his new assertion and position. As we responded to one E-mail communication received from a professional knowledgeable in emergency procedures: once Diana was placed in the ambulance it was incumbent to get her the hospital as quickly as possible. Period. No other argument or assertion is possible especially one which proffered that the ambulance drove slowly as to "avoid bumps" on the road. Yes, that was what original news reports communicated. Further, to reply to Dr. Mailliez whom we are suspicious about: why was a team of 25 medical specialist with the Interior Minister for the country and the police chief for Paris awaiting her arrival? Lastly, if Dr. Mailliez prized interpretation is based on the ultimate condition of Diana, one has to understand that they opened her up and crudely moved to massage her heart since she entered cardiac arrest on arrival at the hospital (after the one hour ambulance ride there). All attempts to circle around answers to our open questions and issues regarding her ambulance ride is more circumstantial proof of foul play.

CONCLUSION: The only conclusion is that the opponents of truth are desperate for Mailliez to come out with this position today: after the dainty doctor's recent world wide appearances and assertions to date were not much more than that he comforted the accident victim, whom he did not know or recognize, and then turned her over to emergency medical crews (leaving upon their arrival). Further, evidence of pressure and desperation is seen from a report from England attesting that Dr. John Burton, Coroner of the Queen's Household, expressed his frustration at having no authority to call witnesses from abroad and said he would have to rely on a report from French police about August's death crash. He branded it a 'ludicrous situation.'" The PA news story further said: " The Coroner who is expected to hold an inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has told of his limited powers to gather evidence about the precise circumstances of the tragedy." We are sure that if the Queen requested, the French authorities would be more cooperative. We doubt the Queen will request such cooperation. The opponents to truth may represent the most powerful among us, but our hope from the first, is that the collective consciousness of billions throughout the world involving themselves in Diana's death, do possess an interest and mandate for truth. We received E-mail from England acknowledging that there was no real press coverage of the French investigation ("As a UK citizen, and one of many who question the poverty of the coverage of this tragic episode by our press and media…."). As we said long ago, the evidence of foul play at the highest levels was from our interpretation that the world media was being held back from aggressive investigation and reporting. We will close down the site the day the world media carries the ball, a ball which is theirs to carry to assure true democratic world dynamics.

Update October 13, 1997 part II

Perhaps it is time we address an issue we wanted to avoid until there was more coverage from world media.. However, it seems very few people know about it, and it connects with our Dr. Frederic Mailliez. Moreover, it may connect with the obtusely long ambulance ride.

On September 19, 1997 Agence France-Presse reported a story which ordinarily would capture the world press and attention. It did not.

WASHINGTON, Sept 19 (AFP) - Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris, may have been six-weeks pregnant at the time of the accident, Time magazine said in its latest issue.

Time Reported that an emergency-service doctor told the magazine that an associate at the scene said Diana was drifting in and out of consciousness, and at one point saying she was six-weeks pregnant while making a rubbing gesture on her belly.

The very same story further stated:

Frederic Mailliez, an off-duty doctor at the scene who had originally said Diana moaned, and gestured, now refuses to say how she looked or what she said, Time said.

'This is the kind of situation that creates myth,' Time cited Mailliez as saying. If she told him anything, Mailliez added, "I would say it only to her family, her sons, her husband."

Consequently, we proffer yet a third gateway to truth. Time Magazine would never have printed this story if it didn't have it confirmed by reliable sources. The third gateway is the reporter and his sources. If this was a situation of high level foul-play, and if Diana was pregnant, then we can pretty much surmise what happened on the ambulance: the removal of all evidence of it. The fact that the world press didn't jump on this story, and the world press closes its eyes (under orders from upstairs no doubt) to it and the entire inept French investigation, and that it connects in some way to our Dr. Frederic Mailliez, neatly ties in to all the other mysteries encountered in our analysis of the accident and death of Diana. In finding this story today (we had heard about it before however), we further came across Dr. Mailliez's interview on CBS This Morning on September 5, 1997. We excerpt:

DIAZ-BALART: With the volunteer firemen working on the injured bodyguard right inside of this tunnel, Mailliez says he was able to focus his attention on an unconscious Princess Diana. He say he lifted her head and helped her breathe by using an oxygen mask. How long were you working on Princess Diana?

DR. MAILLIEZ: I guess it was something like 20 minutes, no more than half an hour.

DIAZ-BAILART: Mailliez says more than 10 photographers were in the immediate vicinity as he treated the princess. Did any photographer at any time push you away, move you to the side, not let you do your work?

DR. MAILLIEZ: Never, Never. As soon as I introduced myself as a doctor, they let me have the access to the car and to the victims.

You can see that the quality of Dr. Mailliez'a accounts have changed in accord with the quality of his dress. In our respectful opinion, Dr. Frederic Mailliez has been compromised.

The following is from the respected Los Angeles Times (September 6, 1997):

The initial diagnosis was "not catastrophic," a rescue official
remembered: head trauma, multiple fractures to a shoulder and thigh. The princess also had regained at least a state of semiconsciousness, said afew words and seemed confused and agitated.

Her most grievous wounds were hidden: She was bleeding massively from internal injuries. SAMU workers realized that when they tried to take Diana's blood pressure and got an alarmingly feeble reading. The princess was rushed to La Pitie-Salpetriere hospital, one of the French capital's largest, about four miles away on the Left Bank.

It was now five minutes past 2 a.m., and doctors at LaPitie-Salpetriere were aghast. Diana, they found, was suffering from massive chest injuries and bleeding. She went into cardiac arrest soon after arrival. Surgeons began a battle to save her life.

Blood--more than 20 pints, by one count--was transfused into her. Doctors also decided to cut her open, baring a hole in her left pulmonary vein. The tear in the vital blood vessel was mended. For two hours, Diana's unresponsive heart, which had stopped beating on its own due to massive blood loss in her chest, was given urgent outside stimulation, by electric shock and doctors' massaging hands.

CONCLUSION: There are some things very apparent. The truth is being hidden and suppressed. Without question, Diana's heart was beating and blood pressure readings supported her being taken to the hospital IMMEDIATELY, where she very well may have been saved. For some reason, her ambulance ride to the hospital was delayed. The only logical predicate now for a long ambulance ride is one connective to foul play, the very same type of foul play we believe Brenda Wells witnessed inadvertently in being where she was that night. Brenda Wells is missing. Is Brenda Wells another victim? We have no account as to what transpired during the one hour ambulance ride. We have Time magazine reporting at one time Diana six-weeks pregnant, with obviously reliable sources thereto. We see all the news concerning this has been suppressed and redirected; we see no aggressiveness whatsoever by the world media relating to the French investigation and to the open issues and questions; we see unfettered attempts at misinformation and to derail intelligent thought and reporting regarding Diana's accident and death. Return the Elton John tribute song. There can be no tribute to Diana if the world public stands silent as the truth behind her accident and death gets buried along side of her.

Update (October 14,1997): It seems difficult going a day without an update. The reason therefor is that the pubic is witnessing surprise after surprise in the Diana story: their curiosity and suspicions have been aroused (from the "concessions" in Time and Newsweek stories). The result is that the spin masters were back out big time today. Tonight's television had more unofficial royal spokesmen telling Americans that Britons have put it all behind them, Brits realizing it was simply a matter of speed, a drunk, and a car. The spin masters were so obvious in their agenda that it was pathetic - it seemed difficult for them to keep a straight face at times. They also were out because they had to cover the disclosure that 120,000 messages from the public paying last respects to Diana were shredded. The spin masters shouted that the royals didn't even know about it - thu