Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

1883??? WTF???

Postby antiaristo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:09 am

"If nobody has been prosecuted since 1883, what the fuck is he going on about? Where is the damage?"

Here is the playbook.

A British subject suffers some aggression.
I won't be specific - it can be anything - but let's say it is a grave breach of her human rights. And easy to prove.

That subject goes to law.

The judge sees the evidence.
He can see that human rights law has been broken.

He receives a communication just before he is to pronounce.

(Rather like these three Appeal Court judges
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story ... 75,00.html )

He is told that to find for the victim would "put a constraint upon" the Queen, and is therefore illegal.

It is illegal for the judge to return an honest verdict.

The victim is frustrated.

her rights (to a fair trial) have been violated by "persons acting in an official capacity".

But there is nothing she can do.

Because the version of human rights passed by the British Parliament does NOT include Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.*

That article says:

ARTICLE 13

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.


http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html


If you follow the logic, this means that human rights in the United Kingdom are discretionary today. They are not rights at all. They can be withheld by the Queen, whenever she so chooses.

That's why the government wants to keep this law on the statute book, but does NOT want to specify a prosecution policy. They have no plans to prosecute anybody directly, using this law.

You can see how the Treason Felony Act is used in the modern era.

Quite right. The last prosecution under this law was in 1883.

But how many times has it been used since then? Used as an indirect tool operating pre-emptively on civil servants?

Did it have some bearing on Widgery (Bloody Sunday) or Bingham (BCCI) or Hutton (too many to list)? Or how many others?

They can do this because the British people are subjects. They have no rights. My overseas friends should bear that in mind when wondering why it is that the Guardian (or whomever) has not done something.

"GEORGE SMITH HAS DIED"


Why is it only The Express that writes about the Diana assassination?

If you know the history of the proprietor Richard Desmond you'd really want to know.**

BY FAR the most important information in the public domain today is the news that the Henri-Paul blood sample was faked.

So the British press is chock-full of baseless flaming of the Russian President.

It's so fucking obvious what's going on, it's painful. :roll:


Footnotes

* Look it up for yourself
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/80042--a.htm#1


** You could do worse than read my letter to the late Robin Cook dated 5 June 2002
(Robin was good enough to send a reply)
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... sc&start=0
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

TFA

Postby blanc » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:32 am

so, forgive the plod plod of my thinking, anti. you think that TFA is kept in abeyance, as a useful bringer into line of anyone who gets uppity with their 'rights' , but in a shadowy way? and that in order to keep it shadowy, the updating of the wording, or clarification of the wording (ie queen=monarch) is intentionally left alone - so as not to engender the whole human rights debate. and that it is simply easier to get a camilla on the throne than to rework this act? and that why we have heard no squealing from leftish papers and their lawyers on this issue, is because they get d-noticed?

do any lawyers support your interpretation of this legal quagmire?
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:33 pm

Blanc,

The only person I've personally heard discussing this aspect is Robert Mugabe. I heard him complaining that "she's taking over the world with her Treason Felony Act".

But of course Mugabe has been given the "Putin treatment" for a very long time (if you want to know the rights and wrongs of Zimbabwe look up the Lancaster House Agreements).

Your characterisation is not too far off. The "dignified" terminology is that it is a "reserved power", to be invoked as a last resort. But of course the very fact it is there will put off a willingness to fight at earlier stages. That it works is all that matters.

She will use it whenever she needs a bent decision, not just when the plebs are being uppity about their rights. It is being used on Butler-Schloss at this very moment.

And Butler-Schloss probably approves :twisted:

How come nothing comes out? D-notice?

You agree the Queen (aka "the Sovereign") is a sovereign ruler?
Here is the wiki definition of "Decree"

An imperial decree is a decree issued by a sovereign ruler, such as an emperor, king, or similarly styled person. Imperial decrees from monarchial times differ from decrees issued by heads of state in modern democracies in that they embodied a force of law that was subject to no limitations either by other branches of government, or through the democratic process.


This has been so since the times of Victoria.
Who can possibly withstand that?

In the old days the Windsor family had to be circumspect in using their power, as the unions were around to fight back. That was the lesson of the 1926 general Strike. But since the defeat of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1985 there has been nothing to hold them back.

Yes it IS a legal quagmire, and there is no way out APART from interregnums. Which is why Australia declared itself independent in 1901, and Ireland declared itself independent in 1937.

We are fast approaching another interregnum.

And everybody is watching the magician's hand - Putin as Blofeld. :evil:
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Old Anti's Almanac

Postby antiaristo » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:03 am

It looks to me as though the Windsors are going to use a variant of the "Ricin Ring" deception.*

Stevens will submit his report just before Christmas.
He will conclude it was "an accident".

Butler-Sloss, sitting in secret and without a jury, will accept the Stevens Report.

The Stevens Report will be the foundation and substance of the "inquest".

The Stevens Report will, in turn, be based on the French investigation.

By the time that the general public learn that the entire edifice is constructed on the fake Henri-Paul blood sample it will be too late to do anything.

Al Fayed will protest, pointlessly. Butler-Sloss will determine that he has no standing.

Pornographer Richard Desmond will be the only newspaper proprietor carrying the story.

None of the media will mention the Treason Felony Act.
None of the media will recall the Burrell letter, which will be mysteriously "lost".
Both have been embargoed by a combination of D-notice and PII.

The death will be officially declared "an accident".

Chirac will repatriate the €30 millions he is holding in Korea, and go on to enjoy a very comfortable retirement.

The British will continue to lecture the rest of the world about "the rule of law".

The next Killer Queen, named Camilla, will be enthroned. The "legal quagmire" will continue.

Ho hum.

Let's all talk about that meanie Putin.
That MUST be important. After all, the newspapers are full of it.

Footnote

* The Ricin Ring deception is covered in Data Dump here (post no. 4 - TFA a case study)

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=8572
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Byrne » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:58 am

Martin Mubanga, a joint citizen of both United Kingdom and Zambia, was held, without charge at Guantanamo Bay for 33 months. He was released in January 2005, when after American authorities transferred him to UK custody, British officials determined there were no grounds to charge Mubanga with any crimes, and he was released.

Mubanga, was the victim of an extraordinary rendition from Zambia, without having an opportunity to challenge his capture or rendition.

Under the Royal Prerogative, the United Kingdom government declined to issue a new passport to Mubanga and three other of the nine freed British Guantanamo detainees.

(source:Wikipedia)


Upon a British MP asking a Written Question in regard to the use of the Royal Prerogative in the denying of the issue of Passports, Charles Clarke explains the British Governments Policy:

----------------------------------------------------------
[url=http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-04-07.217978.h&s=Mubanga#g217978.q0]Written answers
Thursday, 7 April 2005
Home Department[/url]


Guantanamo Bay Detainees


Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour) Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis the Royal Prerogative was used in the decision to refuse Martin Mubanga and Feroz Abbasi British passports.

Clarke Charles Clarke (Home Secretary) Hansard source

It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation*.

----------------------------------------------------------


I imagine THAT Mr. Keith Vaz received a bit of a ticking off for asking such a question in the British House of Commons.

*Prorogation is effectively the Queens final 'say so' at the end of a session of parliament.

Look at the British Parliamentary Questions that have been blanked by the response "It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation". Top of the charts is numpty Ian McCartney in his responses to questions on her majesty's (foreign) policy in Afghanistan & Iraq etc.
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Someone pushing back?

Postby antiaristo » Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:09 pm

Byrne,
Yeah, that's one of the ways she exercises power.

The law says parliament is sovereign.
The problem is, individual Members of Parliament must FIRST swear their allegiance to the Queen and her family.

That's why Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness can't take up their elected seats.

Meanwhile.....

Maybe there ARE some limits? I wonder who is pushing back?

The problem the Establishment face is that the inquest was properly opened by Michael Burgess on 6 January 2004.

Butler-Sloss was brought in as a substitute for Michael Burgess on the same inquest.

Therefore "pre-inquest hearings" are logically impossible. Any "hearings" held by Butler-Sloss are by definition a part of the inquest.

And the law states that all inquests must be held in public.

Look at that bilge from "The Department of Constitutional Affairs"

But the Department for Constitutional Affairs said there was "no statutory requirement for pre-inquest hearings to be held in public."


That's Lord Charles Falconer. Appointed guardian of the British Constitution as a reward for ghosting the attorney general "Opinion".

Now, today's development

Diana hearing to be held in public

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 5:17pm GMT 08/12/2006

The initial inquest hearings into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, will now be held in public after Mohammed Fayed threatened legal action over the matter.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the coroner who will preside over the inquests into the deaths in Paris of the princess and her companion, Dodi Fayed, had previously decided to hold a private "meeting" with interested parties on Jan 8 and 9.

The press and public were to be excluded for what the coroner described as "entirely pragmatic" reasons, understood to be the difficulty of finding a large enough court room. There were immediate objections from media organisations and Dodi's father, the owner of Harrods, Mr Fayed. He had planned to challenge the retired senior judge's decision in the High Court, where she formerly sat.

Last night the Judicial Communications Office told objectors that Lady Butler-Sloss had reconsidered.

"She has a discretion in the matter and is persuaded that the strong public interest in these cases justifies the meeting being a hearing in open court," her spokesman said.

The hearing will take place next month at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, though no venue has yet been chosen for the inquest itself.

Mr Fayed said yesterday: "I'm encouraged by this decision, although I regret it only came about as a result of the threat of legal action."

Questions that will be decided at the preliminary hearing include whether Lady Butler-Sloss will sit with a jury. She will also decide whether the two inquests will be held jointly or separately.

The princess, 36, and Dodi Fayed, 42, died on Aug 31, 1997, when their car hit a pillar in a tunnel in Paris.

A French investigation blamed the driver Henri Paul for driving at high speed while drunk.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... iana08.xml
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:04 am

It's time to turn the TV off and cancel the newspaper subscriptions.

gc


This is interesting.

Two sworn enemies of the BBC are The Telegraph and the Mail. Normally The Telegraph (more restrained) and the Mail are super-critical of anything done by the "subversive, taxpayer funded" BBC.

Not this time, though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... iana09.xml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... rtComments

This time they are publicising the BBC.
They are publicising the essence of the story, which is the "new DNA evidence".

The Telegraph says that new tests were conducted "within the last year" whilst the Mail says they were conducted "as recently as last year".

I wonder what the documentary will say?

A few other points of interest.

The timing: as the Telegraph says

The DNA evidence comes only one day after Lady Butler-Sloss, the former senior judge, was persuaded that the first hearings of the inquest into their deaths in August 1997 should be held in public.


The sourcing: the Express story contradicted by the BBC

Thierry Bellancourt, the deputy chief judge at Versailles, who ordered a criminal investigation into Lecomte and Pepin’s conduct, has accepted claims that there are serious inconsistencies and omissions in the scientific evidence that led French police to conclude in 2002 that the crash was caused by Paul’s drink-driving.


But for the BBC story, as related by the BBC, the Telegraph and the Mail, there is nothing.

The BBC: the Corporation is singularly rudderless at this moment. The Board of Govenors has been disbanded, and its successor BBC Trust not yet formed.

And of course the Chairman of the BBC jumped ship last week (this is not something I'd want on my record, either!).

The Diana letter: there seems to be no mention that she wrote

"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 carbon monoxide: the stories focus on the drink and drugs in the blood sample, but never mention the concentration of CO. Of course this is the most difficult to explain, as the concentration found (consistent with a suicide) would render anybody completely unable to walk, let alone drive a car.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

shit happens

Postby antiaristo » Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:54 am

Two money quotes from the Observer:

Stevens also interviewed Prince Charles and Diana's ex-butler Paul Burrell about a note said to have been written by the princess 10 months before she died. It read: 'My husband is planning "an accident" in my car, brake failure and serious head injury to make the path clear for him to marry.' Prescient it may have been, in part anyway, but detectives ultimately dismissed the note.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/st ... 28,00.html

Stevens is expected to concede that while there was a mix-up it was an accident and that the original French post-mortem which found that Paul was three-times over the French drink-drive limit was correct.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 64,00.html

The British press has been so full of adoring stories about Stevens this past week, I'm surprised he was not tapped to take over from Kofi Annan. Such is his wisdom and integrity.

But the Observer lets it slip with the language.

"but detectives ultimately dismissed the note"
"said to have been written by the princess"

and he is expected to "concede" that while there was a "mix-up" it was an accident.

How extraordinarily convenient for One.
Shit happens, and all that.

Yeah. Buckingham Palace is full of it.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: hits happen

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:39 pm

The phoney pharaoh's not giving up...

CAMILLA AL FAYED

Image

From headline-grabbing reality TV celeb Paris Hilton to publicity-shy newlywed Athina Onassis, today's heiresses provided some of the most fascinating moments of the past year. And now there's a new society princess on the rise - wealthy, beautiful and ever-so-stylish Camilla Al-Fayed, daughter of Harrods owner Mohammed Al Fayed. The gorgeous brunette, who has long been a fixture on the social circuit, is coming into her own in the celebrity set, and has her sights set on making a name for herself in fashion.

HELLO!


Reckon they'll make the switch before or after the coronation?

But seriously, what happened to all the photographers and eyewitnesses? I seem to remember a story developing but it disappeared as quickly as they did.

Several motorcyclists were detained for questioning after the crash, police said. A badly damaged motorcycle was taken from the scene of the accident by police.

Seven photographers were in custody, police said.

At least some of the photographers took pictures before help arrived, French radio said, adding that one of the photographers was beaten at the scene by outraged witnesses.

-------

An American witness, Mike Walker, told CNN the car in which Diana was traveling "looked like it hit the wall."

Two other Americans visiting Paris heard the crash and ran to the scene. Joanna Luz and Tom Richardson, both of San Diego, told CNN they were walking along the Seine when they heard a bang and squealing tires under the bridge.

They described the car as a dark blue Mercedes, with the passenger side airbag deployed, facing oncoming traffic.

They also said they believed at least one cameraman was following the car, saying that what appeared to be a professional photographer was on the scene less than 15 seconds after the crash.

CNN


Did anyone see the BBC doc? I didn't but suspect it was just a primer for the real whitewash.
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Anyone see the doc?

Postby antiaristo » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:01 pm

Did anybody see the BBC documentary?
I'd really love to know how they covered two aspects. The Burrell letter and the carbon monoxide.

There is a clear bait-and-switch going on here.

An inquest is supposed to work like this.

The coroner presides, but in the common law tradition it is the jury that decides matters of fact.

Evidence is put before ordinary people* as a jury, and it is for that jury to decide what they believe, and in what evidence they have faith. The jury then reaches a binding verdict.

But look at what is happening here.
A stooge (Sir John Stevens) is being used to filter the evidence the jury is allowed to hear.

Stevens also interviewed Prince Charles and Diana's ex-butler Paul Burrell about a note said to have been written by the princess 10 months before she died. It read: 'My husband is planning "an accident" in my car, brake failure and serious head injury to make the path clear for him to marry.' Prescient it may have been, in part anyway, but detectives ultimately dismissed the note.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/st ... 28,00.html

That letter was submitted to coroner Michael Burgess on 6 January 2004.
It is a part of the evidence to be considered by the jury in reaching their decision.

Stevens knows all this.

WHY is Stevens trying to prejudice the jury?

Is this just the latest in the list of fixes?

A few that come readily to mind:

- classifying the dead Diana as a member of the royal family even though all connections were severed when she divorced.

- Sidelining Sir John Burt (the royal coroner) so that Michael Burgess could handle both inquests (his district included DAF's residence)

-replacing Michael Burgess with retired privy counsellor Butler-Sloss.

- Butler-Sloss (and Lord Charles Falconer) attempt to hold secret hearings.



I'm very concerned that letter could be "lost". It seems to me that the Windsors and MAF share a common interest in burying that letter.

And I'm very concerned that the carbon monoxide in the blood not be explained. The concentration was 20.7 percent.

Consistent with a suicide.

If the driver had that much CO in his blood they must explain to the jury how it got there in the first place, and how it was that Henri Paul was able to stand up, let alone able to drive a car.


*The one exeption is for members of the royal family, where Palace servants are used.
This loophole was introduced with the Coroners Act 1988, at just about the time the Waleses were starting to have troubles.

29.—(1) The coroner of the Queen's household shall continue to be appointed by the Lord Steward for the time being of the Queen's household.

(2) The coroner of the Queen's household shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of inquests into the deaths of persons whose bodies are lying—
(a) within the limits of any of the Queen's palaces; or
(b) within the limits of any other house where Her Majesty is then residing.

(3) The limits of any such palace or house shall be deemed to extend to any courts, gardens or other places within the curtilage of the palace or house but not further; and where a body is lying in any place beyond those limits, the coroner within whose district the body is lying, and not the coroner for the Queen's household, shall have jurisdiction to hold an inquest into the death.

(4) The jurors on an inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's household shall consist of officers of that household, to be returned by such officer of the Queen's household as may be directed to summon the jurors by the warrant of the coroner.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

From sublime to ridiculous..

Postby antiaristo » Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:48 pm

For those who worry about "her two boys". They're doing their bit with this diversion.

Princes sign 80s favourites for Diana gig

Guardian Unlimited Music staff
Tuesday December 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

In an announcement that will warm the hearts of many and cause groaning amongst others, plans for a concert commemorating the tenth anniversary of the death of Princess Diana have been made public.

Organised by Princes William and Harry, the concert, to take place on July 1 next year at Wembley stadium, will feature a number of acts associated with the Princess's heyday, from Duran Duran to Elton John and Bryan Ferry. Joss Stone will also be playing and so, for some reason, will Pharrell Williams. "Many more" acts are also expected to be confirmed.

With all proceeds from the concert set to go to the Princess's favoured charities, not only will punters be able to listen to Candle in the Wind, they'll be able to do so for a good cause. Announcing the concert, and a religious service that will take place the day before, Princes William and Harry revealed their thinking behind the decision.

"We want [the anniversary commemoration] to represent exactly what our mother would have wanted; how she was and all that sort of thing," said William. "So therefore the church service alone isn't enough.

"We wanted to have this big concert with, you know, full of energy, full of the sort of fun and happiness which I know she would have wanted. The main purpose is to celebrate and to have fun and to remember her in a fun way."


The fun begins tomorrow morning when tickets for the concert go on sale at 9am via the official website. You will also be able to view the concert on television. The full list of confirmed acts is: Duran Duran, Bryan Ferry, Elton John, Andrew Llloyd Webber, The English National Ballet, Joss Stone and Pharell Williams


http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/ ... 37,00.html

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Michael Fawcett got the catering contract :roll: :shock:
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

News Management

Postby antiaristo » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:20 am

.


How extraordinarily transparent.

First Putin.

I then thought the "Ipswich Ripper" might be THE ONE.

But they've got another one, for the political junkies.

Guess what happened today, either side of the Stevens press conference?


2pm update
Police quiz Blair over honours


Staff and agencies
Thursday December 14, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Tony Blair was questioned by police today as part of the cash-for-honours inquiry.
Detectives arrived at Number 10 this morning and subjected the prime minister to a two-hour grilling.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said the premier denied that peerages had been offered for sale.

The prime minister was not cautioned but interviewed as a witness without the presence of a lawyer.

Scotland Yard officers arrived at Downing Street shortly before 11 and left just before 1pm today.

The spokesman said: "The prime minister spoke to police today in Downing Street. This was not under caution, nor was he accompanied by a lawyer."


continues
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/s ... 91,00.html

Of course nothing will come from it.
The police have no duty of care to the people.

Only to the person to whom they swear their oath.

"Our sovereign lady the Queen"

Added on edit:

Looks like they got what they wanted


Sceptics and conspiracy theorists are suspicious - to put it mildly - that after months of speculation on the timing of a police interview with Tony Blair, it coincided exactly with the release of the official report into Diana's death.

Lobby hacks were equally unhappy that they were being brushed off and stonewalled at the 11am lobby briefing - just as Mr Blair was, in fact, being quizzed.

However, if Downing Street was hoping it was a good day to bury bad news, they were somewhat naive. Mr Blair's unprecedent police interview has already knocked the Diana report, and even the Suffolk strangler, off the rolling TV news, the blogs and tomorrow's front pages.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/12/14/
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

News Management II

Postby antiaristo » Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:49 pm

.


What else did they "bury" today?

*The Brazillian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes was shot in the head seven times for no reason by the British.

The British investigated themselves and found themselves inocent.

The Menezes family appealled.
Today the verdict was announced.

*British Post Offices are an important part of the social services for elderly people. Blair's lot have been looking at shutting them down.

Today the decision was announced.

*The fraudbusters have been probing BAe/Saudi dealings, and found much wrongdoing, leading to the Saudi royals.

A few days ago Riyad complained to London.

Today the decision was announced.

On a normal news day any one of those five stories (above three plus Diana plus Blair interview by police) would be at the top of the newspaper headlines.

Today, they are jostling for our attention.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Byrne » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:09 pm

From http://shaphan.typepad.com/blog/2006/12/collision_or_co.html (links therein)

2006.12.19
Collision or Collusion?

To stage an accident to murder the occupants of the car would, in my opinion, require careful, meticulous and co-ordinated planning. The [Operation Paget] team carried out a detailed and thorough investigation of the events leading up to the collusion.

- Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, speaking at the press conference to launch the Operation Paget Report, getting his collisions and collusions confused.



The John Stevens-Operation Paget report [link] on the allegations surrounding the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul has been published. I wish I could join the chorus praising its thoroughness but, having read most of it, I cannot. If its purpose was to portray Diana POW, Mohamed al-Fayed and ex-MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson as unreliable cranks, it's been largely successful. But there are such gaps in the evidence presented that are unexplained, and other claims that are mentioned but not addressed, that the overall impression I have is of a police enquiry that was either incompetent or worse. When the crash first happened, on the 31st August, 1997, I assumed it was an accident, and it has only been as events have unfolded since that I have reluctantly come to suspect otherwise. The Paget Report just about seals it for me.

At the time of the incident, I worked for an NGO that had links to the Met. Police. Much of my time away from the office was spent, by choice, online, scouring the internet and Usenet for information that could help me do the day-job better. Several weeks after the crash (September or early October '97), I came across a document that purported to be sourced to the CIA in Paris, was dated '17 June 1997' and which reported that MI6 was actively planning the demise of Dodi in a car crash, at the behest of the Duke of Edinburgh and the newly elected PM. In its original format, of which I've since lost the original, it was an image of a computer-readout that resembled a fax or telex. [The wording of that document is copied, roughly, below the fold.] I remember - and memory is a fallible tool - that points seven and eight appeared to have been written by a different keyboard than points one to six.

Not long after I'd seen that document and had copied it to my hard-disk, our contacts in Special Branch dropped by to see us/me. The NGO I worked for was, among other things, a repository of information about its chosen subject, and SB officers occasionally checked with us to see if we had any knowledge or information that could help them. Normally they were quite friendly and laidback, but this time I sensed that they were under extraordinary pressure from superiors. The officers knew that I spent time online and they asked/ordered me to watch out for and report anything unusual written about Diana's death, especially any suggestion that British intelligence was responsible. This was in October or November 1997. Although it was outside of my own and my work's interests I nevertheless agreed, as one does; however, I did not tell them about the 'CIA telex' I had copied to my computer, because if its contents were accurate then I wasn't prepared to help them help the security service (MI5) cover it up.

Things took an odd turn in April 1998. The 'CIA telex' on my hard-disk was among several papers that a former CIA officer Oswald LeWinter was caught trying to sell to Al-Fayed for a $20million reward. He had contacted the House of Fayed in Feb/March '98, who unfortunately had reported him to the US authorities. The FBI, CIA and US Attorney's Office devised a sting, using Fayed's chief of security John McNamara, and LeWinter was arrested in a hotel in Vienna, Austria. He was tried and sentenced to two-and-a-half years for attempted fraud, and was released after fifteen months. LeWinter recalls:

The case about which I can tell you a little was an off-the shelf "company" operation. At my trial, Al Fayed's security chief testified that my arrest was planned in D.C. by CIA and FBI a month before I was taken into custody in Vienna. At the time of my arrest, I was shown documents which were found in my hotel room. I had not seen them until then, since another member of the team in Vienna had given them to me the night before. (The police found no fingerprints of mine on the papers.) I had a choice at my arrest to identify the documents as genuine or as fakes. If I said genuine I would face charges in the U.S. of high treason. I said they were forgeries and was arrested for fraud, tried and found guilty despite the evidence of entrapment. The other team members, one a high ranking "suit" in the agency, all escaped. [link] [my emph.]

Thus the 'CIA telex', which I'd had for months prior to LeWinter's arrest, became officially a forgery that the now-convicted swindler LeWinter had tried to sell to Fayed. LeWinter believes he was set up and I tend to agree with him. He clearly didn't write it himself or he wouldn't have published it on the web months previously. He has an interesting enough history to conclude that he didn't simply download it from the web in the hope of conning Fayed out of $20m. I think he was set up to fail, so that the 'CIA telex' could be written off as a forgery. But why would CIA do that unless the 'CIA telex' was authentic?

The Paget Report never mentions Oswald LeWinter. Yet it was the 'CIA telex' in his possession at the time of his arrest that was the origin of Al-Fayed's belief that Edinburgh had tasked MI6 to solve the Dodi problem. Stevens mentions Al-Fayed's allegation about Edinburgh, saying it's a very grave one, but he never explains the origin of it. Diana POW's paranoid suspicions about Edinburgh are aired, but the far stronger evidence of the CIA telex is excluded.

Apart from the missing 'CIA telex', other things in the Paget Report seemed to me unsatisfactory. For example:

Langley message. In the Summer of 2004 the Daily Mail received "an intriguing note" which it passed on to Scotland Yard. The nine-line message was written in a blue felt-tip pen on a torn piece of A4. "If you are brave enough, dig deeper to learn about X and Y," says the note. "Both MI6. Both were involved at the highest level in the murder of the Princess." It is signed off with the words: "Good Luck." The address at the top of the piece of paper is simply 'Langley', the headquarters of the CIA, America's intelligence agency, in Virginia, USA. The Stevens Report makes no mention of it. (X and Y referred to Messrs. Langman and Spearman.)

Adnan Khashoggi. Not named by Stevens. But he turns up, I think, in the evidence of Richard Tomlinson [p.827]. In 1992 I was working on an operation to recover high-tech weapons from the former Soviet Union. This operation was being conducted in collaboration with a very powerful arms dealer whose exact identity I did not know. When I read the file I discovered that this arms dealer was in very frequent contact with Mr Mohamed Al Fayed. I saw that the MI6 informant supplying this information had a code beginning with P, followed by several numbers. As this source was mentioned several times I tried to find out who it was. It was a Frenchman who was head of security at the Ritz Hotel. Stevens discounts the part about the P source in the Ritz but doesn't address or dispute the claim about the "very powerful" arms dealer whom Al-Fayed saw 'very frequently'. Al-Fayed's first wife Samira, the mother of Dodi Fayed, is Adnan Khashoggi's sister. According to the Paget Report, Dodi had bought a £130k engagement ring for Diana that afternoon and intended proposing imminently. The Daily Express newspaper [caveat lector] cites an author who alleges that Dodi spoke with his Uncle Adnan (by phone?) on the evening of his death - i.e. they were close. The possibility that princes William and Harry would be spending their adolescent summers on Adnan Khashoggi's luxury yacht would have been motive enough for Edinburgh, Blair and MI6 to act to prevent it, for justifiable reasons of national security.

Dominic Lawson/Rosa Monckton. (Background - Husband and wife. Dominic Lawson has been accused of working for MI6 [Indie]. Rosa Monckton's younger brother, Anthony, is an MI6 officer [Cryptome]. By strange coincidence, the SIS's training HQ is at Fort Monckton, Hants. [FAS]) This duo gets off lightly in Stevens' book. Mohamed Al Fayed wrote to Operation Paget and made this claim [p.661]: 3. 'Trevor Rees-Jones' book, 'The Bodyguard's Story' is clear evidence of how he, Kes Wingfield and Ben Murrell were turned against me. The book, which was not written by him but by the security services, is a tissue of lies and deceit designed to denigrate me and to support the British authorities' account that the deaths of my son and Princess Diana were the result of a simple traffic accident. 4. 'The Bodyguard's Story' was written with the co-operation of such people as Martyn Gregory and Dominic Lawson. An explanatory "Paget Note" after Lawson's name on page 672 reads: Brother of Rosa Monckton, friend of the Princess of Wales, which is genealogically inaccurate but possibly revealing. The Report rejects the claim that Gregory and Lawson helped write TRJ's autobiography [p.687]. Later it reports an allegation by MAF that: Dominic Lawson's wife is Rosa Monckton and her brother is a serving senior MI6 agent, a statement which is almost accurate except that Anthony Monckton is an SIS officer, not an agent - anyhow, the Paget Report never followed that claim up either. Lawson's wife Rosa Monckton met and got close to Diana after the separation from Charles. She was introduced to her by another friend of Diana, Lucia Flecha de Lima, who would later order Paul Burrell to incinerate Diana's clothes, the ones she had worn the night she died. MAF believes Monckton was used by MI6 to watch over and influence Diana; I do too. Stevens says there "is no evidence" to support this claim, a phrase that is repeated 87 times in the report. (BTW, 'no evidence' appears 204 times; Khashoggi, never; LeWinter, you kidding?) After Diana PoW's visit to Dodi's yacht in St. Tropez and before the fateful weekend in Paris, Rosa Monckton took her on a private cruise of the Aegean. Given her connections, I presume that Rosa sought to prise Diana away from Dodi, seemingly without success.

Nevertheless, several things seem to have been confirmed or revealed by Operation Paget. Dodi was about to propose to Diana. The Mercedes was blocked from taking its normal route and was forced to go by the Alma underpass. None of its occupants, not even the bodyguard, was wearing a seat-belt. When Operation Paget inspected the Mercedes, it found that the seat-belt of the right-rear seat, Diana's place, was "jammed in the retracted position" [437] - however, it concluded that it had been damaged by the crash itself. It doesn't reveal whether the seat-belts were manually or electronically operated - could the Mercedes have been electronically tampered with so as to prevent the seat-belts from being used? PC Paget doesn't ask that question.
I've written this, my first blog-entry for weeks, because nobody else seems to have critiqued the Paget Report in any detail that I've seen. If anyone can point me towards such a thing, please do. Despite what people might have read widely in the press, John Stevens' report, while exhausting to read, is far from exhaustive in its treatment of the evidence, such as there is, that supports the outlandish theory that there was an SIS-centred conspiracy to dispose of Dodi Fayed and that, whether deliberately or not, Diana, PoW was killed in its execution.

-----
DOMESTIC COLLECTION DIVISION

Foreign Intelligence Information Report

Directorate of Intelligence

WARNING NOTICE - INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS INVOLVED

FURTHER DISSEMINATON AND USE OF THE INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CONTROLS STATED AT BEGINNING AND END OF REPORT

REPORT CLASS: TOP SECRET REPORT NO: 00.D 831/173466-97

COUNTRY: France

DATE DISTR: 17 June 1997

SUBJECT: File overview: Diana Princess Of Wales-Dodi

REFERENCES DCI Case 64376

SOURCE: CASParis/CASLondon/COSGeneva/CASKingston/UK citizen Ken Etheridge

1. Relationship initiated between Diana POW and Dodi aF according to reliable intel sources in November 1996. Intimacy begins shortly after they meet. (Report filed)

2. Reliable source reports Palace seriously disturbed by liaison. PM considers any al Fayed relationship politically disastrous. Edinburgh (Prince Phillip -ed) sees serious threat to dynasty should relationship endure. Quote reported: "Such an affair is racially and morally repugnant and no son of a bedouin camel trader is fit for the mother of a future king," Edinburgh. (Report filed)

3. Request from highest circles to DEA attache UK for 6 on Dodi re: Cocaine. See File forwarded to UK embassy DC. (Copy filed)

4. US liaison to MI6 requested by David Spedding for assistance in providing permanent solution to Dodi problem. Blessing of Palace secured (Twiz filed)

5. WHuse (White House -ed) denies Spedding request. Harrison authorized only to arrange meeting for MI6 representative with K-Team Geneva. (Twiz on file)

6. Meeting in Geneva reportedly successful (Report filed)

7. al Fayed Mercedes Limo stolen and returned with electronics missing. Reliable intel source confirms K-team involved. Source reports car rebuilt to respond to external radio controls. (Report filed)

8. COBGeneva reports that on May 28, 1997 heavily weighted Fiat Turbo...(end of page text)

[url][/url][/quote]
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Post coming

Postby antiaristo » Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:33 pm

:D
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 156 guests