Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:35 am
4. Mr Burrell has recently disclosed a letter written by the Princess of Wales in October 1996 and apparently given to him for safekeeping. It includes the following passage:
`I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. [...] is planning `an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry. ...’
(This appears to be a direct lift from a newspaper article of October 2003.)
Source - Undated ‘Note of Argument’ Supporting Petition For Judicial Review - Minister For Justice, Scotland - In name of Mohamed Al Fayed, Page 7(11) xxii
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:37 am
1. Concerns for her Personal Safety
Section 1 is in two parts:
Part (a) examines evidence where the Princess of Wales has expressed her concerns specifically relating to a car accident:
i) A note produced by Lord Mishcon, the Princess of Wales’ legal representative, giving details of a meeting with her in 1995 in which she expressed concerns for her safety.
ii) A note left apparently in 1995 or 1996 for her butler Paul Burrell, in which she wrote of her fears of a car accident.
iii) An incident in a car she was driving in 1995 when the Princess of Wales believed her brakes failed as a result of tampering.
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:42 am
Part (a) - Concerns Relating to a Car Accident
i) The Lord Mishcon note
Lord Mishcon was the personal legal representative of the Princess of Wales. In 1995 he was general advisor to the Princess of Wales. In a meeting with her she outlined
fears for her safety, including the possibility of an accident in her car. Following her death in the 1997 traffic collision, Lord Mishcon believed he should bring the content of the note to the attention of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Baron MISHCON of LAMBETH (now deceased)
Legal adviser to the Princess of Wales.
Interviewed by Operation Paget -Statement 222
On 30 October 1995, he attended a meeting with the Princess of Wales and her Private Secretary, Patrick Jephson. Following that meeting, Lord Mishcon prepared a handwritten note (Operation Paget - Exhibit VM/1).
He wrote that the Princess of Wales had told him, that ‘reliable sources’ (whom she did not wish to name) had informed her that by April 1996, whether in an accident in her car such as a pre-prepared brake failure or by other means, efforts would be made if not to get rid of her, then at least to see that she was so injured or damaged as to be declared unbalanced.
The Princess of Wales apparently believed that there was a conspiracy and that both she and Camilla Parker Bowles were to be ‘put aside’.
Lord Mishcon told the Princess of Wales that if she really believed her life or being was under threat, security measures including those relating to her car must be increased. He did not believe that what she was saying was credible and sought a private word with Patrick Jephson, who to Lord Mishcon’s surprise, said that he ‘half believed’ the accuracy of her remarks regarding her safety.
On 18 September 1997, following the Princess of Wales’ death in Paris, Lord Mishcon met with the then Commissioner Sir Paul (now Lord) Condon and then Assistant Commissioner (now Sir) David Veness at New ScotlandYard (NSY), in order to bring the note to their attention. He read out the note (Operation Paget Exhibit VM/1) and emphasised that he was acting in a private capacity rather than on behalf of his firm or the Royal Family.
A note of that meeting was produced (Operation Paget Exhibit VM/2). It details the then Commissioner’s view that the facts so far ascertained showed her death was the result of a tragic set of circumstances. The note concluded that if it ever appeared
there were some suspicious factors to the crash in Paris, the Commissioner would make contact at a confidential level with Lord Mishcon or his firm. Lord Mishcon agreed with this course of action.
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:43 am
Lord Paul CONDON
Former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.
Interviewed by Operation Paget -Statement 232
Lord Condon recalled the meeting with Lord Mishcon and the note produced by him.
He stated that it was agreed by all present that the facts of the incident in which the Princess of Wales died, as known at that time, indicated that it was a tragic accident. It was also agreed that if at any time that situation changed and the circumstances of her death were to be regarded as suspicious, the note and the Princess of Wales’ concerns would be revisited. The Commissioner asked Assistant Commissioner David Veness to monitor the situation on his behalf.
Lord Condon stated that his belief at the time of the meeting was that the car crash in Paris was a tragic accident and since that meeting nothing had been brought to his attention that would alter that view. Whilst Commissioner he would have sought a further meeting with Lord Mishcon had there been cause to do so. There was no cause to do so.
Lord Condon was shown a copy of the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper article dated 20 October 2003, that referred to a note released by Paul Burrell in which the Princess of Wales expressed concerns for her safety. Lord Condon was not aware of that note before its publication in the newspaper in 2003.
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:45 am
Sir David VENESS
Former Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service.
Interviewed by Operation Paget - Statement 227
Sir David recalled the meeting with Lord Mishcon in September 1997 to discuss the note written two years previously. Lord Mishcon wanted to bring the content of the note to the attention of the Commissioner of Police. It was agreed that if the note became relevant then Lord Mishcon or his firm must be consulted before any disclosure took place.
Sir David stated there were ‘two blocks on using the document’. Firstly, there must be some relevant suspicion concerning the death and secondly, authority must be sought from Lord Mishcon or his firm before disclosure. In his view these conditions never arose.
However, when on 20 October 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper published the story about the letter/note in the possession of Paul Burrell, Sir David Veness and the Commissioner of the time, Sir John Stevens, reviewed the Lord Mishcon note. As a result of this review and after seeking the view of Lord Mishcon, it was agreed that the Coroner should be informed of the existence and substance of the Lord Mishcon note. Further, enquiries should be made with Patrick Jephson who was also present during the meeting of Lord Mishcon and the Princess of Wales in 1995.
Sir David’s first knowledge of the Paul Burrell letter/note was when it was published in the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper on 20 October 2003. He was not aware that Paul Burrell was in possession of the letter/note and not aware of anyone else who knew about his possession of it. If he had known about the contents of the letter/note before then, Sir David stated he may have instructed that Paul Burrell should be seen about it.
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:47 am
Patrick JEPHSON
Private Secretary to the Princess of Wales from 1990 until his resignation in January 1996.
Interviewed by Operation Paget -Statement 23
In relation to the meeting in October 1995 between the Princess of Wales and Lord Mishcon, Patrick Jephson assumed that Lord Mishcon's responsibility was primarily that of a solicitor to his client and that he was therefore obliged to take what the Princess of Wales said at face value, whatever misgivings he might have had privately.
In the circumstances, Patrick Jephson thought it highly unlikely that the concerns of the Princess of Wales were well-founded. He was however anxious not to dismiss these claims outright. She had made similar claims to him in the recent past without any evidence being found. Nevertheless, he knew that an open expression of disbelief might discourage her from sharing similar fears in future. He felt it best to try to elicit the source of her information in order to decide what credence it deserved.
However, in the time available, he was not able to establish the source with any certainty and even wondered if one existed at all. Knowing her as he did, he was fairly confident that her behaviour was not that of someone who actually feared for her life.
[Paget Note: Following the taking of this statement from Patrick Jephson in December
2003 the Coroner, Michael Burgess, was informed of the Lord Mishcon note.]
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:48 am
ii) The Paul Burrell note
In October 2003 the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper printed the following extract from the note, left apparently by the Princess of Wales in Paul Burrell’s office at Kensington Palace:
“This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous, ____ is planning an ‘accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry.”
[Paget Notes: i) The masked section covered the words ‘my husband’.
ii) The note is referred to by some as a ‘letter’]
Paul BURRELL
Former Butler to the Princess of Wales.
Interviewed by Operation Paget - Statements 24, 24A and 24B
In February 2004, Paul Burrell sent a statement to the Coroner, Michael Burgess. He referred to the ‘letter’ he had received from the Princess of Wales. He stated:
‘In October 1996 I received from the Princess a letter an abridged copy of which I now attach to this statement. In the course of this letter, the Princess makes reference to her fears that she would die in a road traffic accident. The Princess had mentioned similar fears to me on previous occasions and had also mentioned them to Ken Wharfe, her former close protection officer and I believe to other close friends.’
‘When the Princess had spoken about dying in a car accident, her expressed rationale in thinking that that would be the way that somebody would kill her was simply that it would be the easiest way to do it without arousing suspicion.
When I received the attached letter from the Princess I did not become more worried or vigilant on her behalf as a result of it but took it to be a further repetition of a previously expressed fear.’
‘The letter represented the only document received by or seen by me containing any reference to car accidents and it was, I believe, simply an indicator of the way the Princess was thinking and feeling at that point in time.
Having received the letter from the Princess I did discuss it with her, but it was clear that this was something that she felt when she wrote the letter and which did not preoccupy her thereafter so that we never discussed it again.’
Operation Paget officers met Paul Burrell in May 2004. He provided a further statement. He stated that the letter left by the Princess of Wales was more accurately described as ‘a memorandum or note as there was no addressee’; it was just left inside the blotter in his office at Kensington Palace for his attention. This was her custom.
He was sure the note was received in the month of October as he related it in his mind to another incident that happened shortly afterwards at Christmas time. He believed now that it may have been written a year earlier than he first stated, perhaps in 1995. Although the year may be different the facts of the note remained the same.
He did not lay any particular weight on the note and did not discuss the Princess of Wales’ fears with anybody else. There were no instructions attached to it and the Princess of Wales did not talk about it [Paget Note - In his first statement he stated they discussed it but only on one occasion]. He did not do anything about it because he thought she was just unburdening her fears again. It was one of several memoranda she wrote between 1991 and 1997, particularly around the time of her divorce.
[Paget Note: The Princess of Wales was divorced in August 1996.]
Paul Burrell, in relation to other fears expressed by the Princess of Wales, stated:
‘There were no other notes outlining this particular fear and I believe it has now been taken out of context and too much emphasis placed on it. I have never seen or heard of any evidence that would substantiate the fear expressed and I do not know what prompted her to write it at that time. I am not aware of any evidence that her vehicle was ever interfered with.’
Paul Burrell stated that the Princess of Wales believed that Barry Mannakee, a former Personal Protection Officer who had on occasions been assigned to her, had been deliberately killed in a motorcycle crash. The crash happened seven months after Barry Mannakee had moved from personal protection duties to more general diplomatic protection. Paul Burrell believed that the Princess of Wales never wavered from this view and this may have influenced her thinking when writing the note.
[Paget Note: The motorcycle crash involving Barry Mannakee is dealt with in section 4 of this Chapter, ‘The safety of people close to the Princess of Wales’. The conclusion in that section is that Barry Mannakee died in an accident. There is no evidence of any suspicious circumstances associated with his death.]
Paul Burrell believed that if the Princess of Wales had been truly concerned for her safety in a car, as expressed in the note, she would not have continued to drive. In his statement of May 2004, he said:
‘As far as checking her car, not much was done. We looked under the wheel arches for things like tracking devices but did not really know what we were looking for. Any tampering could easily be done during a service and we would not know about it. Even then, Rod Gunner at BMW, Holland Park looked after her car at the time and he was very vigilant. There was no previous evidence of brake failure. She still drove herself and this did not change even though everyone seemed to know where she was going and were she would be. I believe if she had been truly concerned for her safety in a car, as in the note, she would not have continued to drive herself around in her own car. Any concerns that she had were more around media intrusion.’
It would appear that no one, other than Paul Burrell, knew of the existence of this note until its publication in 2003. Members of her family, friends and associates of the Princess of Wales have been asked about the note and their views are summarised here.
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:56 am
His Royal Highness THE PRINCE OF WALES
The note identifies ‘my husband’ as the subject of her concerns and belief that a car accident was planned, to cause her a serious head injury in order to make the ‘path clear for Charles to marry’.
[Paget Note: There is a generally held perception that this reference is to Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall. This is not so. The Princess of Wales did name a woman in her note. It was not Camilla Parker Bowles. Operation Paget knows the identity of the woman named. The circumstances in which she is mentioned support the view that the note is more likely to have been written in 1995.]
HRH the Prince of Wales stated that he had no knowledge of this note until its publication in 2003 and did not know why the Princess of Wales wrote it. The Princess of Wales did not speak to him about it. HRH the Prince of Wales knew the woman named in the note, as a family friend. There has never been any possibility at any time of marriage to her.
Operation Paget Comment
TRH the Prince and Princess of Wales divorced in August 1996. The fact that the Princess of Wales referred in the note to ‘my husband’ rather than her ex-husband or some other term, lends support to the fact that it was written before that date and thus the date of October 1995 is more likely.
The claim made by the Princess of Wales in the Paul Burrell note may have been an indication that at the time of writing it she perceived threats to her position in many different ways. The note showed that her concern at that time was not, as was generally perceived, Camilla Parker Bowles. In the Lord Mishcon meeting of October 1995 (most probably the same time as the Paul Burrell note) the Princess of Wales had in fact referred to both herself and Camilla Parker Bowles being ‘put aside’.
None of the family, friends and acquaintances of the Princess of Wales were aware of the note. Some questioned its authenticity. Some believed that the original date given by Paul Burrell of 1996, i.e. post-divorce, did not fit with the Princess of Wales’ state of mind at that time. She and the Prince of Wales had officially separated in 1992 and the divorce was complete in the summer of 1996. Relatives and friends believed she was looking forward to the future and her relationship with HRH the Prince of Wales had improved. They therefore believed it was more likely that the note was written in 1995, as described in Paul Burrell’s second statement.
There are no other known notes outlining this particular concern.
Her fears caused her to write the note
to him in October 1996. Before sealing
the envelope addressed just to "Paul,"
she told him, "I'm going to date this
and I want you to keep it...just in case."
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:58 am
iii) Concerns expressed by the Princess of Wales regarding her car
In 1995 the Princess of Wales believed she had problems with the brakes on her car and that they had been tampered with. She told Simone Simmons and Hasnat Khan of this incident.
p137
Claim 4 - Mr Burrell has recently disclosed a letter written by the Princess of Wales in October 1996 and apparently given to him for safekeeping. It includes the following passage:
`I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. [...] is planning `an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry. ...’
[Paget Note: This appears to be a direct lift from the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper article of October 2003.]
None of the friends of the Princess of Wales was aware of the ‘Burrell note’ before its publication, including HRH the Prince of Wales himself. The Princess of Wales appears not to have spoken to anyone after writing it, other than possibly a short conversation with Paul Burrell.
Some question the authenticity of the note on the grounds they find it hard to believe she would write such a note and because the original date of receiving the note, given by Paul Burrell, of October 1996 does not fit with the Princess of Wales’ state of mind at the time. Therefore they believe it is more likely that the note was written in October 1995, a fact now accepted as a possibility by Paul Burrell.
The Prince and Princess of Wales divorced in August 1996. The fact that the Princess of Wales referred in the note to her ‘husband’ lends support to the fact that it was written before that date and thus the date of October 1995 is more likely.
Paul Burrell believed that the note had been taken out of context and too much emphasis placed on it. To his knowledge there were no other notes outlining this particular fear. He had never seen or heard of any evidence that would substantiate the fear expressed and he did not know what prompted her to write it at that time. He believed if she had been truly concerned for her safety in a car, as described in the note, she would not have continued to drive.
The ‘Burrell note’ of 1995/1996 stated her ‘husband’, was the subject of her fears and her belief that he planned a car accident to cause her a serious head injury in order to make the ‘path clear for Charles to marry’. It is a general perception that this reference is to Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall. This is not so. It was not Camilla Parker Bowles.
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:00 am
Paul Burrell has provided two statements to Operation Paget.
In his statement of May 2004 Paul Burrell stated:
‘Her correspondence included letters from Prince Philip. Much has been reported in the media of his dislike for the Princess but I would describe them as having a mutual respect for each other. They were similar personalities in many ways and got on much better than is generally perceived. He could be direct but would also give her support writing her notes on many occasions.’
‘I should also point out that although there had been animosity between HRH the Prince of Wales and the Princess of Wales at the time of the divorce, they had come through that and were on cordial terms when she died. The last time I saw them together at Kensington Palace they were very friendly to each other. Although he could be mentally cruel to the Princess at times he is a kind person generally and I have certainly never had any thought or information that he would harm the Princess in any way.’
And in his statement of April 2006 he stated:
‘I have been asked to expand on the comment in my book when the Princess said to me “What a secret”, referring to a coming weekend. I am not prepared to say any more on this subject but can confirm that it bears no relevance to your investigation.’
Paul Burrell stated he has never seen or heard of any evidence that would substantiate the fears expressed by the Princess of Wales and he does not know what prompted her to write of her fears when she did.
There was no evidence that Paul Burrell held any ‘secrets’ that would assist in better
understanding the events in Paris in August 1997.
by antiaristo » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:16 am
Claims
4. Her Majesty the Queen told Mr Burrell that 'There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge'. It is probable that this was a reference to the security services.
Claims
4. Her Majesty told Mr. Burrell that 'There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge'. It is probable that this was a reference to the security services.
Paul BURRELL
Butler to the Princess of Wales.
Interviewed by Operation Paget - Statement 24
He confirmed to Operation Paget his account of the conversation he claimed to have had with H.M. The Queen in 1997, when she apparently said there were ‘powers we know nothing about’. This comment has been in the public domain for some time, having been made public by Paul Burrell at the time of his trial in 2002. He did not ask the Queen what she meant by the alleged remark as, in his opinion, that would not have been proper. Buckingham Palace, then and since, has chosen to make no comment on Paul Burrell’s account of the conversation.
Claim 4 - Her Majesty the Queen told Mr Burrell that 'There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge'. It is probable that this was a reference to the security services.
It is probable that this was a reference to the security services
by Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:32 pm
by antiaristo » Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:31 pm
Princess Diana Letter -
'They Will Try To Kill Me'
By Jane Kerr
Royal Reporter
The Mirror - UK
10-20-3
Princess Diana claimed there was a plot to kill her in a car crash in a handwritten letter only 10 months before she died. She gave it to her butler Paul Burrell with orders that he should keep it as "insurance" for the future.
The princess predicted: "This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous." She said "XXXXXXXXXXX is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry".
In the letter, revealed by the Daily Mirror today, Diana named who she believed was plotting to kill her. But the Mirror is not able to repeat the allegation for legal reasons so we have blanked that part of the letter out.
The document will fuel the conspiracy theories which have raged in the six years since she was killed in a Paris car crash.
But it also appears to bring fresh importance to a warning by the Queen that there were "powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge".
The Queen was speaking to Burrell at Buckingham Palace in a meeting that would prove crucial in the collapse of his trial for theft.
Now, plagued by that meeting and deeply troubled that there has still been no inquest in Britain into the death of Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, Burrell has come forward with the stunning new evidence.
In his new book A Royal Duty the former servant ñ cleared last year of stealing Diana's possessions ñ claims she began to worry about her security TWO YEARS before her death and that this led her to record her fears in the document.
Before sealing the letter in an envelope marked "Paul", the princess told him: "I'm going to date this and I want you to keep it ... just in case."
In the second paragraph of the document, written in October 1996, Diana explained in the plainest possible language that she was convinced of the plot to mastermind an accident.
Burrell describes in his book the events that led the princess to write the document at her desk in Kensington Palace.
Diana's divorce from Prince Charles had been finalised less than two months earlier.
The princess, who had cut down on her charities to focus on Aids, leprosy and victims of homelessness, was enjoying huge public support.
But according to Burrell, by the autumn of 1996 she had "an overpowering feeling that she was 'in the way'."
He adds: "Rightly or wrongly she felt the stronger she became, the more she was regarded as a modernising nuisance.
"She certainly felt that 'the system' didn't appreciate her work and that for as long as she was on the scene Prince Charles could never properly move on."
Burrell says the princess told him: "I have become strong and they don't like it when I am able to do good and stand on my own two feet without them."
The princess's anxiety deepened to such an extent that she ordered a sweep of her apartments at Kensington Palace for listening devices.
By October 1996 she once again confided in Burrell that she believed there was a concerted attempt to undermine her in the public's eyes.
She recalled that she had been brooding about Charles's relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles and the continuing role of Tiggy Legge Bourke, nanny to Princes William and Harry, in the Royal Household.
Burrell says the princess was feeling "undervalued and unappreciated". But at the root of her fears she said she was "constantly puzzled" by attempts by Prince Charles's supporters to "destroy her".
With these thoughts and fears in her head, Diana decided to put her fears to paper, says Burrell.
The letter betrays the loneliness Diana was feeling: "I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high." According to Burrell it was not the first time Diana had felt it neccessary to record what was happening to her. He said: I became the repository for royal truths.
"These notes are her legacy and are crucial to the truths that enshrine her memory and debunk the damaging myths that seem to have been peddled since the day she died."
Diana and Dodi Fayed were killed in the early hours of August 31 1997 when a Mercedes S280 driven by drunken chauffeur Henri Paul careered into the Pont d'Alma tunnel in the French capital.
An inquiry in 1999 by the French authorities blamed Paul, concluding that he had taken a cocktail of drink and drugs before losing control of the car because he was speeding.
However, there has been a growing unwillingness by the public to accept the official version of her death.
Burrell admitted he shares the doubts. He said: "With the benefit of hindsight, the content of that letter has bothered me since her death."
It will strike a chord among people who remain puzzled by inconsistences in her death, including questions over a mysterious white Fiat Uno which grazed the Mercedes in the tunnel and over blood samples taken from Henri Paul.
Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi's father, has spent tens of thousands of pounds on a private investigation, convinced that Diana and Dodi were murdered by British security services at the behest of Establishment forces.
But Diana's family refuse to believe the theories. Her mother Frances Shand Kydd accepted the findings of the French inquiry "without reservation".
Dianaís brother Earl Spencer also said he was satisfied that the authorities had "reached the right conclusion".
Hopes that some of the mysteries would be unravelled were dashed last month.
A spokesman for the royal coroner Michael Burgess said the date for an inquest on Diana would be announced within days.
But hours later Mr Burgess ordered the statement to be withdrawn, saying it was "premature" to suggest a date and refusing to give a timescale.
The lack of an inquest and his prosecution for theft in 2002 steeled Burrell's determination to make public the princess's concerns for her security.
"That letter has been part of the burden I have carried since the princess's death. Knowing what to do with it has been a source of much soul-searching."
He insists that whether it is a "wild coincidence" or an explanation for the tragedy is a matter for a coroner's court.
He adds: "It may be futile in what it achieves because it can do no more than provide yet another question mark.
"But if that question mark leads to an inquest and a thorough investigation of the facts by the British authorities it will have achieved something."
© owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Digital Media Limited 2001.
by antiaristo » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:35 am
ValueClick Media
AN EXPLANATION OF THE FACTIONS
[ View Thread ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ] [ Bring 'em On! ]
Rumor Mill News Reading Room Archive
Diana named 'Prince' Charles as murder crash planner
Posted By: Banana
Date: Tuesday, 6 January 2004, 7:07 a.m.
1) The 'Daily Mirror' has 'revealed' that it was 'Prince' Charles who
Princess Diana said, in a letter to Paul Burrell, was planning to have
her murdered in a car crash.
This is not a new revelation. It could be worked out from a published
photo of the letter.
I stated this on 24 October 2003 in an article posted to the
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana newsgroup and elsewhere. This article is
archived at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bl ... emon.co.uk
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=ba>
2) The 'Mirror' originally published a PHOTO of the words:
"[...] is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury"
and then the TEXT "to make the path clear for Charles to marry."
They claim that Burrell instructed his publishers to replace "him" with "Charles"
But, AS I REVEALED THREE MONTHS AGO, if you look closely at the
letter-tops visible in a lower line, the word "Charles" cannot be
correct. The correct words are almost certainly "for HIM to marry"
[emphasis added].
This means that the "he" who wants to get married is the SAME PERSON as
the murder planner, i.e. that the murder planner is 'Prince' Charles.
3) That the 'Mirror' publish this today, on the day of the reconvening
of the inquests, surely indicates that the divisions in the UK-based
section of the ruling class are exacerbating. Expect big conflicts.
On the Windsors' side of the fence, various scumbags, e.g. in the Fabian
Society, are doing their bit to defend the Windsor family by trying to
boost some crappy 'debate' on the 'reform of the monarchy'. Critics
should employ the usual method: notice what the assumption is.
4) Most other UK newspapers, brown-nosing the 'royal' family, are 'omitting'
to publish this information. Reuters, which (yes, dear reader) is owned
by SIS (MI6), are also omitting to publish it, claiming that 'lawyers'
have advised them against it. Meanwhile, Channel 4 do their bit for the
Windsors by showing a film tonight with the basic message that 'Diana
was a whore'. Guess where the decision may have come from to show that?
But when the ship sinks some more, some rats will desert it. James
Whitaker's article below may be a case of 'confirming something by
denying it', the old trick that some journalists think is so clever. "I
don't believe for one moment" is a classic way for a journalist to say
"Here is what I am saying".
5) One tactic of the Windsors may be to play UP the letter, in order to
divert attention from much stronger evidence of foul play, such as:
- witness evidence of obstruction of off-roads, forcing the Mercedes to enter the tunnel
- presence of the SIS Director of Operations (now head of SIS, Richard Dearlove) in Paris
- alleged 'disappearance' of the other car with which the
Mercedes came into contact in the tunnel, despite the area being
one of the most heavily surveilled in the world, the middle of
Paris embassyland
- the ridiculous assertion that none of the cameras along the route were working, or that no footage was recorded and kept
- the faked blood sample that, once debunked, leaves zero evidence that Henri Paul was drunk in the slightest
Note that they are only focusing on 'Prince' Charles, and not on his
parents, whereas such a decision would have been a family decision. This
is unlikely to last for long.
Nor are they mentioning the SIS report to the family's Way Ahead Group
(that considers the long-term strategic interests of the family),
prepared in the run-up to the assassination.
It is a certainty that the French authorities have got enough evidence
to bring down the Windsor dynasty within about five minutes flat.
http://tinyurl.com/2al4b
[note from antiaristo: I've shortened this link, but it's long since dead anyway]
***BEGIN ARTICLE 1***
DIANA'S LETTER: IT WAS CHARLES
Jan 6 2004
EXCLUSIVE
By Jane Kerr, Royal Reporter
PRINCE Charles is the person Princess Diana claimed in a letter wanted
to kill her, the Mirror sensationally reveals today.
Before she died in a car crash, Diana wrote: "My husband is planning 'an
accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury...to make the
path clear for him to marry."
She gave the note to butler Paul Burrell who revealed its existence in
the Mirror last year. Charles's name was blanked out. Burrell has been
asked to hand the document to the coroner who today opens the inquest
into Diana's death.
Burrell said: "It has fulfilled its purpose. I wanted to give force to
the argument that an inquest must be held."
***END ARTICLE 1***
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/pa ... ethod=full
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=bc>
***BEGIN ARTICLE 2***
"MY HUSBAND IS PLANNING AN ACCIDENT"
Jan 6 2004
By JANE KERR, Royal Reporter
PRINCESS Diana believed Prince Charles wanted her killed in an accident
when she was plagued by anxiety and feared for her safety.
She told of her worries in her now infamous note which she handed to
butler Paul Burrell as "insurance" on the day she wrote it in October
1996, 10 months before she died in a Paris car crash.
Burrell censored the note when he disclosed its existence in his book
last year by blanking the words "my husband" from the text.
The full text, revealed for the first time, now reads: "This particular
phase of my life is the most dangerous - my husband is planning 'an
accident' in my car, brake failure & serious head injury in order to
make the path clear for him to marry."
The Daily Mirror - not Burrell - has decided to publish the blanked out
name because it will inevitably appear in the public domain.
Burrell is prepared to hand the note to the coroner probing the deaths
of Diana and boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed whose inquests open today.
By bringing the text to light he is honouring a long-standing promise to
co-operate fully with the inquiries.
Speaking at his home in Farndon, Cheshire, Burrell - known by Diana as
her "rock" - said yesterday: "This matter has to be handled with great
sensitivity and I have genuine concerns about that.
"I reproduced only a portion of that letter in my book to provide
further force to the argument that an inquest must be held.
"To that end, the document has fulfilled its main purpose.
"I'll do what I've always said I'll do, and provide the coroner with
every possible assistance where the information I know is relevant to
his investigations."
Royal coroner Michael Burgess has already written to Burrell asking for
the document to be handed over for examination.
The former butler is happy for Mr Burgess to see the entire contents.
He is due to meet his lawyers this week and will then be questioned
about the correspondence. No decision over whether the letter will be
regarded as evidence will be made until the coroner has viewed its
contents.
A source said: "Mr Burgess will take nothing on face value, and he'll
question Mr Burrell very closely over its contents and how it came to be
in his possession. It will be a matter handled with great sensitivity
and care."
Mr Burgess has yet to decide what witnesses and evidence will be deemed
admissable at the full inquests. But Burrell is widely expected to be a
key witness.
The sensational development once again puts Charles's relationship with
his companion Camilla Parker Bowles in the spotlight. It again focuses
attention on Diana's anxieties over her ex-husband in the year before
her death.
It also renews attention on the conspiracy theories swirling round
Diana's death in the Pont d'Alma tunnel in Paris.
These theories were fuelled by the haunting similarities between her own
prediction and the 1997 crash.
Speculation raged over the the blanked-out name in the letter published
in Burrell's book, A Royal Duty, which was exclusively serialised in the
Mirror. At the time, the passage appeared as: "********* is planning 'an
accident' in my car... in order to make the path clear for Charles to
marry."
Burrell had instructed his publishers Penguin to replace the word "him"
with "Charles" to protect the prince's interests.
He said in his book: "I will never say what those blacked-out words
say... deciding what to do with it (the letter) has been a source of
much soul-searching.
"I agree that it may be futile in what it achieves because it can do no
more than provide yet another question mark. But if that question mark
leads to an inquest... it will have achieved something."
Burrell has revealed that at the time the letter was written Diana was
plagued by insecurities and even believed her Kensington Palace
apartments were bugged.
Her marriage had ended only two months before. Though she had negotiated
an estimated £17million settlement, the princess was devastated at
losing her HRH title. Charles had admitted conducting an affair with
Camilla, saying he committed adultery only after his marriage became
"irretrievably broken down, us both having tried".
Today, Camilla is the prince's accepted companion. She lives with him at
his London home, Clarence House, and his Gloucestershire home,
Highgrove. She has also accompanied him on semi-official engagements.
Diana's friends have always said that in the months leading up to her
death she had resolved her differences with Charles and was looking
forward to them becoming friends. Burrell said in the Mirror the letter
provided "evidence of the state of the princess's mind in the final
months of her life".
He admitted it increased huge public interest which was "crying out for
a full examination of the facts".
Mr Burgess announced that an inquest would be opened into Diana's death
two months after Burrell's sensational book was published.
The hearing will open at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, in
Westminster, Central London. An inquest on Dodi, who lived at Oxted,
Surrey, will open in the afternoon at Reigate. Mr Burgess is expected to
announce the scope of his hearings and the course his investigation will
take before full inquests are held later in the year.
The coroner will first have to digest a 6,000-page police report and
secret evidence from the French inquiry into the princess's death held
by judge Herve Stephan. First evidence is not likely to be heard before
the autumn.
Diana, 36, and Dodi died in the early hours of August 31, 1997, when a
Mercedes driven by chauffeur Henri Paul careered out of control and
smashed into a concrete pillar. The 1999 French inquiry said the crash
was an accident caused by chauffeur Paul being high on drink and drugs.
Dodi's father, Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, believes his son and the
princess were murdered, and has spent thousands of pounds pursuing his
own investigations.
Diana's family do not believe the theories. Her mother, Frances Shand
Kydd, accepted the French inquiry findings "without reservation".
***END ARTICLE 2***
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=4078455
(and linked page for second part of article)
***BEGIN ARTICLE 3***
UK Tabloid Names Royal in Diana Death Plot Claim
Tue January 6, 2004 05:17 AM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - A tabloid newspaper named a senior member of
Britain's royal family Tuesday as the person the late Princess Diana
suspected of plotting to kill her.
In a front-page splash on the day Britain was opening an inquest into
Diana's death, the Daily Mirror named the person she had claimed was
"planning an accident" in a chilling prediction of her own death in a
car crash in August 1997.
She made the allegation in a letter she gave to her butler and
confidant, Paul Burrell, before she died.
The former wife of heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles died at the age of
36, along with her lover Dodi al Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul in
a Paris road tunnel.
The Mirror appeared to be risking an aggressive legal response from
Buckingham Palace to its story. The rest of the normally competitive
British media omitted the name, apparently to avoid legal action under
Britain's tough defamation laws.
Legal experts advised Reuters not to publish the name.
The Mirror printed a copy of the letter Diana wrote just 10 months
before her death on its inside pages. Although it identified the person
in its own story, the name was blanked out in the reproduction of the
handwritten letter.
"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous," it quoted the
letter as saying. "(...) is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake
failure and serious head injury."
Burrell, who gave The Mirror access to the letter as part of a
serialization of excerpts of his book which was published late last
year, reacted angrily to news the name had been revealed.
"I am not very happy about it...I only learned about it late last night.
And it was always my intention never to publish that name," he told
reporters waiting outside his house on Tuesday.
Britain's tabloid newspapers have been engaged in an almost daily battle
in the years since Diana's death to produce the most sensational
headlines about Diana, Charles and other members of her family and
former household.
Tuesday's revelation came as Royal Coroner Michael Burgess was due to
open and adjourn inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi.
Hundreds of journalists from around the world gathered for the start of
the inquests in central London -- the first official public hearings
into the crash to be held on British soil.
An inquiry by French authorities in 1999 ruled the accident was caused
by chauffeur Paul being drunk and driving too fast.
The Mirror said Burrell was prepared to hand over the Diana letter to
the coroner as part of the inquest.
It said that in doing so, he would be "honoring a long-standing promise
to cooperate fully with the inquiries."
After a 15-year marriage, Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 after both
had admitted to having adulterous affairs.
***END ARTICLE 3***
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/pa ... 6&method=f
ull
or click: <http://shorturl.net/?l=bd>
***BEGIN ARTICLE 4***
I CANNOT BELIEVE HE WANTED TO HURT HER
Jan 6 2004
By James Whitaker
MAY I say, from the very beginning, that Diana's fear her ex-husband
might want to hurt her, in any way, just has to be wrong.
I don't believe for one moment that the Prince of Wales would ever wish
any harm to the mother of his children, let alone be the architect of
any move to harm her.
We don't live in mediaeval times when bumping off troublesome spouses,
courtiers or mere irritants was part and parcel of royal behaviour.
Add to this the very nature of Prince Charles, the sort of man he is,
and common sense, surely, tells you that any thought that he would want
to bump off the princess is ridiculous.
I write these words in the belief that the prince was cruel to Diana in
the way he never let go of Camilla Parker Bowles - the root cause of her
suffering.
But we now have to face up to the unpalatable fact that Princess Diana
clearly DID believe that Charles was capable of hurting her.
So much so that she put down, on paper, her fear that Charles was
planning "an accident" for her. It is hard to imagine anything more
horrible.
We now know these were her feelings, paranoid or not.
So can there be a shred of truth in what she wrote in October 1996?
Reading the opening of the letter that Diana entrusted with her "rock",
Paul Burrell, 10 months before her death, gives us a clue to her state
of mind that day.
She began her letter: "I am sitting here at my desk today in October,
longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold
my head high. This particular phase of my life is the most dangerous..."
At this point she names her ex as the man she believes is plotting her
death.
Was she deranged? I think not. Was she seeing conspiracies that didn't
exist? Yes.
By this stage of her life she was feeling neglected, abandoned and a
burden even to her family. Poor Diana.
All she wanted was a cuddle and somebody to love her.
Instead, all she had was her butler, comforting and faithful as he was.
In her state of deep depression, she unburdened her heart and produced
the sort of words that are the stuff of horror books, of gremlins and
ghouls, of plotting and revenge. Such innermost feelings should have no
part of our thinking, but now they are with us.
And they are matters that we have to consider, like it or not.
I have done so and believe that such an act is beyond the comprehension
of a man who I have been reporting on since he was 20 years old, still
at Cambridge University.
I'm not an intimate of the Prince of Wales, but I have been studying him
closely since the late 60s and believe I know a reasonable amount about
him. He is undoubtedly selfish, he is unquestionably indulged more than
any human being ever should be and I have no illusion that he can be
ruthless whenever necessary.
But there is a wonderful side to him, too.
He is caring of others, even those he hardly knows (he once sent my
hospitalised wife a get well card via his personal protection officer
the night she broke her leg in a skiing accident in Klosters) while the
amount of money he raises for his charities is phenomenal.
His loyalty to old friends is legendary while ex-fighting men and women
come high on his list of priorities.
DESPITE his disagreements with his mother, and even more, his father, he
would die for them both. So, to think he could harm Diana is, for me,
beyond reasonable belief.
There are many conspiracy theorists out there and a significant number
will readily accept the notion that there is no smoke without fire and
that therefore this letter should be taken seriously.
I don't know how many will go down this path but I believe that some
will be giving Prince Charles a decidedly sideways look from now on.
There is a truism about being the Sovereign and that is that no king or
queen can reign without the goodwill of the people. The support of the
vast majority is paramount if the system is to work. With the Queen, it
does because few people, even republicans, think she does a bad job.
More to the point, we all trust HM. We think that she does her level
best on our behalves.
I am uncertain as to what Charles does now. He is in a real pickle.
His marriage plans with regard to Camilla are firmly on the back burner,
while the two have reached a stage of their lives where they hardly dare
appear in public as a couple.
She, rightly, is keeping quiet and staying out of sight. Smart girl.
Charles, on the other hand, can't disappear off the radar screen.
He has an important official role to fulfil and has to soldier on no
matter what accusations are hurled at him.
It is, of course possible that the coroner, Michael Burgess, might not
allow this letter from Princess Diana to Burrell to be admitted as
evidence as he conducts his inquest. It is entirely a matter for him.
I understand that even the recipient of this anguished letter, Paul
Burrell himself, does not believe that Charles would ever carry out such
a dastardly act, as suggested by Diana.
But I feel that the interests of the public would not be best served if
Mr Burgess were to decide that the letter was not worthy of
consideration.
All evidence surrounding the case of Diana should be put on show and
then properly debated.
The death of Diana and what really happened that night in August 1997
should be brought to as swift a conclusion as possible. The damage that
has already been caused cannot be allowed to continue.
We need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, however
unpalatable it might be.
***END ARTICLE 4***
Messages In This Thread
Diana named 'Prince' Charles as murder crash planner (views: 250)
Banana -- Tuesday, 6 January 2004, 7:07 a.m.
[ View Thread ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ] [ Bring 'em On! ]
Rumor Mill News Reading Room Archive is maintained by Forum Admin with WebBBS 5.12.
AN EXPLANATION OF THE FACTIONS
Return to Data & Research Compilations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests