Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

[blanc]

from appendices of "In the Public Interest" a few snippets on the money trail
1. re
internal company memo (Astra I think) trip report to KSA 18-27 April 1989
"concerns the second part of Margaret Thatcher's Al Yamamah arms contract with Saudi...Mark Thatcher is again implicated, but more devastatingly the size of the payment - $4bn - required to secure the deal. No UK company is big enough to put up that sort of cash: only the government could have made it available. The $4bn must have been taxpayers' money..."
2. Aitken
"Following arrests of Chris Cowley and Peter Mitchell(25April1990) and those of other executives involved with Gerald Bull's Supergun (1-2May),.....
The BMARC Board minutes implicate non-executive director Jonathan Aitken (later to become HM's Minister for Defence Procurement) in BMARC sales to Middle East conduits for Iraq...
The Rexon pallet label for the Iraq-bound Ordtec contract shows its destination as the Al Fao organisation, a Baghdad arms factory. Orders for the removal of the incriminating label were appended before the shipment left FX, BMARC's Faldingworth plant, where all hands were washed clean."

[rrapt]

Shedding the TV habit is harder than you think for some GC. I have done it but I was never much of an addict anyway. Now for me, no TV, no radio, no papers, no magazines. My wife and SO though spends hours per day soaking up the crap, and she misses my presence. One can imagine how this could cause a strain on the relationship...

[antiaristo]

Fayed challenges judge's decision to hold Diana hearings in private

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT 01/12/2006

Secret inquest hearings into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales are planned for next month, it emerged last night.

Before that, Lord Stevens will release the findings of a three-year police investigation into the case. His report, due to be published on Dec 14, is widely expected to conclude that the car crash that killed the princess was an accident.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the retired senior judge who will sit as the coroner, wants to hold preliminary hearings on Jan 8 and 9 without the press or public present. But her decision is to be challenged in the High Court by Mohamed Fayed, whose son, Dodi, died with the princess in 1997.

The Egyptian businessman again claimed yesterday that the princess and her companion were murdered in a secret plot by the Royal Family. He alleged that Lady Butler-Sloss, who has been appointed Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household in order to preside over the inquest, had "taken her first step towards ensuring that the cover-up continues".

Accusing her of taking part in an "Establishment plot", he maintained that her decision to hold the preliminary hearing in private was an attempt to stifle public debate.

"I have tirelessly fought for truth and justice against an army of dark forces who do not want the truth to become public," Mr Fayed said. "I simply ask for honesty, fairness and openness."

Lady Butler-Sloss, who received a peerage on retiring as president of the High Court Family Division, was appointed to hold the inquests into the deaths of the princess and Dodi Fayed after the full-time coroner, Michael Burgess, said the cases would be "too time-consuming" for him to handle. At a preliminary hearing, the coroner would normally set a timetable and decide who should be legally represented at the hearing.

Buckingham Palace confirmed that Lady Butler-Sloss had invited lawyers for the Royal Household to attend.

A more important decision to be taken by Lady Butler-Sloss at the preliminary hearing is whether to sit with a jury. If so, it would consist of Officers of the Queen's Household rather than members of the general public.

Mr Fayed objected. "A jury of 12 ordinary people should hear all the facts and make up their own minds," he said.

In fact, coroners' juries must consist of seven to 11 members.

The Harrods owner said he was seeking judicial review to "compel" the deputy coroner to sit in public next month "so that Britain and the world at large may judge for themselves".

Section 17 of the Coroners Rules requires inquests to take place in public unless it would be in the interests of national security for the public to be excluded. But the Department for Constitutional Affairs said there was "no statutory requirement for pre-inquest hearings to be held in public."

The problem facing Lady Butler-Sloss is that the inquest into the princess's death was opened and adjourned by Mr Burgess in January 2004. If next month's proceedings are to be regarded as a continuation of that inquest, it would follow that they should be held in public.

Mr Fayed is seeking judicial review of the deputy coroner's decision to sit in private next month.

One problem Mr Fayed faces is that the High Court decided in 2001 that he was not an "interested party" in the princess's inquest and not entitled to take part in it.

The princess, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 42, were killed with their chauffeur, Henri Paul, when their Mercedes crashed in the Pont d'Alma tunnel in Paris on Aug 31, 1997. They had been followed by paparazzi photographers after leaving the Ritz Hotel for Mr Fayed's apartment.

A two-year investigation in France blamed Mr Paul for losing control of the car because he was intoxicated and driving too fast.

That conclusion is likely to be endorsed by Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner who was asked by Mr Burgess to investigate the case. His inquiry, estimated to have cost £4 million, is said to bring together some 20,000 documents and 1,500 witness statements.

But Mr Fayed complained that the report had been kept from him. Lord Stevens had also failed to see or take statements from more than 13 witnesses, he believed.

Mr Fayed's spokesman said he was convinced that the Stevens inquiry was being closed down prematurely by the Government with vital questions unexplored or unanswered because the Government wanted the process out of the way before Tony Blair's departure from Downing Street.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... iana01.xml


Just for completeness, this is the solemn oath sworn by all privy cousellors, of which Butler-Schloss is one.

You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

Another privy counsellor is Lord Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, the man who controls the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

He is the man who pre-empted the attorney general, and substitited his own draft of the ag "opinion". It was issued to parliament in the name of the ag on 17 March 2003.

"a faithful and true Servant" of Her Majesty.

Like I said before, that letter from the Princess never happened. We were mistaken when we thought Michael Burgess had already opened the inquest on 6 January 2004.


kristinerosemary,
I think this is the image to which you refer.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1402

Since it is not me that is in possession of this letter, there is not much I can say. But I will make this observation. You cannot fake handwriting, even with photoshop. But faking print is the easiest thing in the world.

You take a copy of the letter "N" from the word "Kensington", and you replace the "S" with that copy. Result: "Kennington Palace"

[slimmouse]

Fayed challenges judge's decision to hold Diana hearings in private

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT 01/12/2006

Secret inquest hearings into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales are planned for next month, it emerged last night.

Before that, Lord Stevens will release the findings of a three-year police investigation into the case. His report, due to be published on Dec 14, is widely expected to conclude that the car crash that killed the princess was an accident.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the retired senior judge who will sit as the coroner, wants to hold preliminary hearings on Jan 8 and 9 without the press or public present. But her decision is to be challenged in the High Court by Mohamed Fayed, whose son, Dodi, died with the princess in 1997.

The Egyptian businessman again claimed yesterday that the princess and her companion were murdered in a secret plot by the Royal Family. He alleged that Lady Butler-Sloss, who has been appointed Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household in order to preside over the inquest, had "taken her first step towards ensuring that the cover-up continues".

Accusing her of taking part in an "Establishment plot", he maintained that her decision to hold the preliminary hearing in private was an attempt to stifle public debate.

"I have tirelessly fought for truth and justice against an army of dark forces who do not want the truth to become public," Mr Fayed said. "I simply ask for honesty, fairness and openness."

Lady Butler-Sloss, who received a peerage on retiring as president of the High Court Family Division, was appointed to hold the inquests into the deaths of the princess and Dodi Fayed after the full-time coroner, Michael Burgess, said the cases would be "too time-consuming" for him to handle. At a preliminary hearing, the coroner would normally set a timetable and decide who should be legally represented at the hearing.

Buckingham Palace confirmed that Lady Butler-Sloss had invited lawyers for the Royal Household to attend.

A more important decision to be taken by Lady Butler-Sloss at the preliminary hearing is whether to sit with a jury. If so, it would consist of Officers of the Queen's Household rather than members of the general public.

Mr Fayed objected. "A jury of 12 ordinary people should hear all the facts and make up their own minds," he said.

In fact, coroners' juries must consist of seven to 11 members.

The Harrods owner said he was seeking judicial review to "compel" the deputy coroner to sit in public next month "so that Britain and the world at large may judge for themselves".

Section 17 of the Coroners Rules requires inquests to take place in public unless it would be in the interests of national security for the public to be excluded. But the Department for Constitutional Affairs said there was "no statutory requirement for pre-inquest hearings to be held in public."

The problem facing Lady Butler-Sloss is that the inquest into the princess's death was opened and adjourned by Mr Burgess in January 2004. If next month's proceedings are to be regarded as a continuation of that inquest, it would follow that they should be held in public.

Mr Fayed is seeking judicial review of the deputy coroner's decision to sit in private next month.

One problem Mr Fayed faces is that the High Court decided in 2001 that he was not an "interested party" in the princess's inquest and not entitled to take part in it.

The princess, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 42, were killed with their chauffeur, Henri Paul, when their Mercedes crashed in the Pont d'Alma tunnel in Paris on Aug 31, 1997. They had been followed by paparazzi photographers after leaving the Ritz Hotel for Mr Fayed's apartment.

A two-year investigation in France blamed Mr Paul for losing control of the car because he was intoxicated and driving too fast.

That conclusion is likely to be endorsed by Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner who was asked by Mr Burgess to investigate the case. His inquiry, estimated to have cost £4 million, is said to bring together some 20,000 documents and 1,500 witness statements.

But Mr Fayed complained that the report had been kept from him. Lord Stevens had also failed to see or take statements from more than 13 witnesses, he believed.

Mr Fayed's spokesman said he was convinced that the Stevens inquiry was being closed down prematurely by the Government with vital questions unexplored or unanswered because the Government wanted the process out of the way before Tony Blair's departure from Downing Street.

OK, now Im convinced Icke is correct. This is little more than tittle/tattle window dressing.

Just out of interest, who TF updated at 1.52 am ?

[antiaristo]

Even posthumously, Diana can cause the Windsors at least as much trouble as she did while alive. Why else would the Royals, including her own sons, be so anxious to silence Burrell to the tune, according to the Mail on Sunday, of £5 million?

The "smoking gun" worth so much money is the tape Diana kept inside an antique box with her other most prized possessions, James Hewitt’s signet ring and a bundle of her father-in-law’s letters. The empty box, known as the "Crown Jewels", has now been returned to the Spencer family. The signet ring has been returned to Hewitt. Burrell has denied knowing the whereabouts of the tape. But he said the same about Prince Philip’s letters, choice extracts from which he has now made public.

So what is on that tape? Diana’s recording of her interview with a former Royal valet, George Smith, the victim of an alleged gay rape by another Royal servant. Mr Smith was subsequently paid off by Prince Charles to the tune of three times his annual salary, as confirmed in the recent report by his private secretary, Sir Michael Peat.

In one bland sentence, Sir Michael dismissed the widespread belief that this was hush money, though he did confirm the prince as saying he wished Mr Smith could somehow be "made to go away".

On the tape, Mr Smith reportedly gives chapter and verse on another allegation already in the public domain: that he had witnessed a Royal in a compromising act with a member of staff. Those in the know about Mr Smith’s allegations, myself included, believe the monarchy could not survive their publication.

They cannot be printed, for obvious legal reasons, unless Mr Smith himself chooses to make them public. Or someone publishes the tape.

'Smithgate' Royal Rape Tape Could Bring Down The Monarchy

Anthony Holden – The Scotsman Oct. 28, 2003

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=1193

mourningdove



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 25

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44
newsday.com-AP


Quote:
LONDON -- George Smith, a former royal servant whose claim of rape sparked lurid tales of sexual misdeeds within the royal household, has died at the age of 44, his father said Friday.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... ight=royal

[isachar]

Even posthumously, Diana can cause the Windsors at least as much trouble as she did while alive. Why else would the Royals, including her own sons, be so anxious to silence Burrell to the tune, according to the Mail on Sunday, of £5 million? ...

...In one bland sentence, Sir Michael dismissed the widespread belief that this was hush money, though he did confirm the prince as saying he wished Mr Smith could somehow be "made to go away".

On the tape, Mr Smith reportedly gives chapter and verse on another allegation already in the public domain: that he had witnessed a Royal in a compromising act with a member of staff. Those in the know about Mr Smith’s allegations, myself included, believe the monarchy could not survive their publication.

They cannot be printed, for obvious legal reasons, unless Mr Smith himself chooses to make them public. Or someone publishes the tape.

'Smithgate' Royal Rape Tape Could Bring Down The Monarchy

Anthony Holden – The Scotsman Oct. 28, 2003

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=1193

mourningdove

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 25

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44
newsday.com-AP

Quote:
LONDON -- George Smith, a former royal servant whose claim of rape sparked lurid tales of sexual misdeeds within the royal household, has died at the age of 44, his father said Friday.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... ight=royal

Dead you say? Smith is dead.

Do you suppose that Putin's knowledge of the various murders and related scandals and cover-ups by, of and among the British royals has anything to do with his sense of impugnity in the recent poisioning (with radioactive material no less) of Mr. Litvinenko on British soil?

Or perhaps it's the British admin's involvement in the earlier murder of Mr. Kelley?

Well, you see where this sort of thing leads, now. Right? Just a lot of dead bodies around which another cover-up must be constructed and inquests must be obstructed or cooked.

[antiaristo]

Anti, as with 911, 2000 and 2004 US Prez election thefts, Iran-Contra, Mena, JFK, RFK, MLK, Abu Graihb, etc., there's a Plan A (the initial frame-up/official cover story), and Plan B (usually disinfo in those involved in uncovering Plan A), and Plan C, D, E and F, which are fall backs to be used when each succeeding plan fails.

Dead you say? Smith is dead.

Do you suppose that Putin's knowledge of the various murders and related scandals and cover-ups by, of and among the British royals has anything to do with his sense of impugnity in the recent poisioning (with radioactive material no less) of Mr. Litvinenko on British soil?

Or perhaps it's the British admin's involvement in the earlier murder of Mr. Kelley?

Well, you see where this sort of thing leads, now. Right? Just a lot of dead bodies around which another cover-up must be constructed and inquests must be obstructed or cooked.

isachar,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the sense I get is that you are telling me there is nothing I can do. It's happened before (your long list) and they know how to get away with it. The only outcome will be just a lot of dead bodies around. Am I being fair?

You see that is exactly what I've been told since the initial crime over twelve years ago.

And it's a lie. They HATE opposition!

I happen to know that I have lived through a unique process, and been given special knowledge. The sort of things usually denied to the non-masonic working class - more correctly, the people - in the common law world.

The Scottish Rite Freemasons are at maximum vulnerability right now.
They are seeking to transition from one queen to another. From Elizabeth to Camilla.

And they are on shaky ground.

Only a queen can invoke the Treason Felony Act: there is no mention of a king. Charles alone does not have the power.

That is why Diana had to die.

"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."

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

[blanc]

anti - the guardian mounted a challenge to the TFA . I am not questioning the wording of the act, but can't understand why the law would not be interpreted as queen means reigning monarch? and if that were impossible, why the legal team at the guardian would not have got to grips with it?
in essence I'm asking why no-one else would have fallen on the same interpretation of the wording of the act as you?

[antiaristo]

I am not questioning the wording of the act, but can't understand why the law would not be interpreted as queen means reigning monarch?

Hi blanc.
Yeah, that's the crux of it.

The answer is that according to the underlying law (Treason Act 1351), "our lord the King" is specified as being different to "Our lady his Queen".

They are NOT interchangeable.

Text here
http://www.tiersma.com/STATS/TREASON.HTM

If you think about it, if they WERE interchangeable there would have been no need for the new law in 1848, would there?

I'm not sure what the rest of your question means. Can you be more precise?

[blanc]

I meant that its difficult to see why, if as you say, he TFA can only be used in offenses against a queen, this has not been flagged up by for example the guardian's legal dept.
what cases have been brought under this act, under which monarchs?

[isachar]

Anti, please forgive the misimpression I may have left with my comments. I am by no means suggesting that there is nothing you or anyone else can do. Ineed, the awareness and commitment of individuals and, hopefully, a large share of the public/mass opinion are the only things that can make a difference. I guess my sense of irony and disgust overrode my point and my question.

My long list was to suggest that this problem has a long history and is the result of very powerful interests - which you certainly are aware.

The requirement for these deeds to generate a massive disinfo campaign, selected murders and cover-ups is profound as all would be lost by the perps should the original crimes/treasons become well known or should the public allow knowledge thereof into their consciousness.

It seems the need to maintain their lack of culpability in Dianna's death will result in an overpowering need to keep the whole thing quiet - to the extent to which people are made to disappear if necessary.

Parenthetically, I was wondering if Putin's knowledge of royals and Blair's involvement in Dianna's and Kelley's deaths has given him a license to operate his own death squads in England with impugnity. Seems like an unexpected form of blow-back.

I don't doubt for a moment that the facts pertaining to Dianna's death have been coverup and consider the 'official story' of her death to be as bogus as the official story of the 9/11 attacks.

[antiaristo]

what cases have been brought under this act, under which monarchs?

The first was against the likes of John Mitchell in Ireland, during 1848.

The last formal prosecution was in 1883.

So, Victoria only.

I meant that its difficult to see why, if as you say, he TFA can only be used in offenses against a queen, this has not been flagged up by for example the guardian's legal dept.

Have you heard of the D - notice?
The Guardian must take care to stay within the law.

And what would be the grounds for a challenge? The courts would simply disallow any litigation as "hypothetical".

If you study closely what happened in 2003 you will find that the Guardian was trying to force the attorney general to state his prosecution policy.

You will also find that the AG refused to so do.
He WANTS to keep it "hypothetical"

In other words nobody knows what the law means.

But whatever it means, they want to keep it on the statute book. Indefinitely.

On the other hand I do indeed know what the law means, for the simple reason that it has been used against me.

That's the only way you know.
From personal experience.

[antiaristo]

isachar,
Thanks for the clarification.

Parenthetically, I was wondering if Putin's knowledge of royals and Blair's involvement in Dianna's and Kelley's deaths has given him a license to operate his own death squads in England with impugnity. Seems like an unexpected form of blow-back.

To be honest, this is the part that bugged me.

Can't you see that you are asking Putin when he stopped beating his wife?

I'm getting pretty angry at some of the double standards being exhibited here.

The Windsors are beyond criticism.
But Putin is guilty as charged. And fair game.
Meanwhile Blair intends to breach the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
HOW will Camilla play Britannia, lacking her Trident?
They happen to NEED Putin as a threat.

I've seen acres of wallpaper expended on that oh-so dangerous Nazi, Lyndon LaRouche.
But when photographs are published showing Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, graveside at the funeral of a prominent Nazi, shortly before World War II, nary a word.

I've posted how Prince Charles wanted "to make him go away" when it came to George Smith. And how George Smith "has died" some eighteen months later.

George Smith was an ordinary working class bloke. He got damaged in the Falklands and was taken in to royal service.
He was bullied, and ultimately raped by the Prince's favourite, Michael Fawcett.
He was a victim, who would not shut up.

That Russian bloke was a lump of shit.
Showing their usual tact (eg Olympics award, followed a day later by the bombings), he was poisoned on the very same day that he received his papers making him British.

That gives the British an interest, a pretext.

The issue of passports is a royal prerogative issue. The Sovereign decides who can become her subject.

For all his millions, and all his efforts, Al-Fayed could not get a British passport.
Because ever since the battle for House of Fraser (Harrods), he and the Windsors have been enemies.

I don't believe Putin is guilty.
I can make a much stronger case that the criminals are to be found in London.
And that they have strong motives to frame the Russian President.
But I respect your right to disagree.

But it seems double standards are in force.

And yes this is on topic.
When it comes to political assassinations, the British have form.

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that they were fully capable of the Diana/Dodo assassination.

And thanks for the chance to vent

[slimmouse]

Meanwhile Blair intends to breach the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Blair has just decided that the British taxpayer will spend 20 thousand million pounds on trident. On who's behalf ? It aint the fucking taxpayer , thats for sure.

For all his millions, and all his efforts, Al-Fayed could not get a British passport.
Because ever since the battle for House of Fraser (Harrods), he and the Windsors have been enemies.

Here we may have to disagree John. I feel that MAF and the Windsors are as thick as thieves. For reasons I dont wish to go into here, but it concerns your posting from the telegraph.

I don't believe Putin is guilty.
I can make a much stronger case that the criminals are to be found in London.
And that they have strong motives to frame the Russian President.

Strangely enough, that is David Shaylers precise take on all of this. And I can see his logic for sure.

PS. This post will probably get my internet connection booted, but to be honest Im beyond caring

[Seamus OBlimey]

PS. This post will probably get my internet connection booted, but to be honest Im beyond caring

Slim, have you had this happen? A few hours go I posted a comment on this board and saw my connection instantly severed. Not the grey screen of overuse or any of the usual error messages, I couldn't even access the email account at my ISP. After two hours on the phone to tech. help where they asked for my postcode, adress, operating system, browser version, shoe size, ping this, pop that etc. they told me it must be a bad connection between my pc and the modem. Insisting that it wasn't I rang the accounts dept. to cancel my subs. and voila! Instant reconnection.

What's that smell? Fish?