Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

[antiaristo]

.


I've been waiting for this.

There are laws against prejudicing legal processes concurrently underway.

Yet THIS book of fables by Lady Evans is published just as the inquest is getting to the meat.

And it will be impossible to ignore. Just look at the supporting cast.

They wouldn't do this for just Tina, would they?

Project Tina draws a galaxy of stars


David Smith
Sunday June 10, 2007
The Observer

Wine and canapes with a sprinkling of old friends is not Tina Brown's style. The awesome social networker and queen of New York's media scene - who once famously said, 'You don't make friends, you make contacts' - is about to use every weapon at her disposal for a promotional tour for her book on Diana, the Princess of Wales. You have been warned - Project Tina is about to commence.

The Diana Chronicles, for which Brown is thought to have received a £1m advance, is published this week featuring a wealth of detail about the life of Princess Diana, gleaned with the help of Brown's substantial contacts book. The revelations began yesterday with the first published extracts and the claim that Camilla Parker Bowles never wanted to marry Prince Charles.

As might be expected of a former editor of The New Yorker and Vanity Fair magazines, the British-born journalist has masterminded a campaign unprecedented in scale - and glamour.

Her launch party at the voguish Serpentine Gallery in London's Kensington Gardens - near Diana's former Kensington Palace home - has a guest list which reflects her power to call in favours and attract stars to her orbit. It includes Tony and Cherie Blair, Conservative leader David Cameron and MP Boris Johnson, Madonna, Kate Moss, shoe designer Jimmy Choo, film director Stephen Frears, TV cook Nigella Lawson, former News of the World and Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan and the actors Rupert Everett, Helen Mirren and Kevin Spacey. Numerous other editors, journalists, publishers and royal insiders are expected.

The event is being organised by the international news agency Reuters, whose corporate marketing and communications director, Simon Walker, is an old friend of Brown. Gail Rebuck, the powerful chief executive of Random House, Brown's publisher, is likely to attend, along with her husband, Lord Gould, the polling expert and close adviser to the Prime Minister.

Known for her workaholism, Brown, 53, married to the author and journalist Sir Harold Evans, will embark on a marathon series of interviews to heighten the publicity. She is booked to appear on Channel 4's Richard & Judy, BBC2's This Week, GMTV's Sunday Programme, Sky News and BBC Radios 2, 4 and 5 Live. She has also accepted requests from Harper's, Hello! and Saga magazines and the Sunday Express, Financial Times, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Times as well as newspapers in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. Random House is working to set up yet more interviews.

In a nod to highbrow audiences, Brown will also appear on stage in conversation with the historian Andrew Roberts 'to talk about celebrity, life and politics' at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in central London on 20 June.

It all starts on the other side of the Atlantic. First, there is a New York launch party tomorrow night at the highly fashionable Sony Club on Manhattan's Madison Avenue, hosted by the consumer electronics giant's chief executive, Sir Howard Stringer. A private party with Brown's old New Yorker colleagues has already been held at the apartment of its current editor, David Remnick, who gave a speech laced with humour about the book.

In the contents of The Diana Chronicles revealed yesterday, it was claimed that Camilla, now Duchess of Cornwall, would have preferred to remain married to her first husband Andrew and continue to be Prince Charles's lover rather than marrying the Prince of Wales. Richard Parker Bowles, her former brother-in-law, told Brown: 'Camilla never wanted to marry Charles. She wanted to continue to be his paramour but stay married to Andrew.'

The couple married in April 2005, more than 30 years after their romance began, following a divorce each and Diana's death a decade ago. Brown's book also said Diana accidentally helped Charles and Camilla's clandestine relationship by openly referring to their affair in an interview.

She writes: 'By outing Camilla she had unwittingly done her rival a favour. The two felt free to be less furtive about a known relationship.'

The book claimed the princess went on holiday with Dodi al-Fayed to the south of France in the days before her death to annoy the royal family. Art collector Lord Palumbo, a friend of Diana, told Brown: 'She just wanted to make the people at Balmoral as angry as possible.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 69,00.html


I'm afraid the chickens are coming home to roost for Al Fayed.

This is the predictable outcome from his terribly flawed legal strategy.

And if he doesn't change that legal strategy pretty damn fast he's going to be blown out of the water by the Mighty Wurlitzer.

[antiaristo]

.


That's part I: The Mighty Wurlitzer to set up a wall of noise.

But maybe some will still reach the public conscious?

Part II: turn a public inquest into a secret hearing. Let the press report on "costs" and nothing else.

New coroner in Diana inquest warns against 'unnecessary' costs
13.06.07

The new coroner for the Diana, Princess of Wales inquest has used his opening statement to issue a warning about costs.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, who has replaced Baroness Butler-Sloss, said "tight discipline" was needed to make sure unnecessary witnesses were not called.
.............
Blah blah blah costs blah
.............

At the outset, the new coroner took the press and media by surprise by making a temporary order banning the reporting of evidence heard at today's preliminary hearing which might eventually go before the inquest jury.

Lord Justice Scott Baker acted after Ian Burnett QC, counsel to the inquest, urged that nothing should be reported that might "compromise the fairness of the proceedings and prejudice them".

The coroner said he would make an order prohibiting the reporting of whether particular evidence might or might not be called, and also "the substance of that evidence".
He said: "I shall make the order in these terms on a temporary basis."

It is expected that he will make a decision later today on what can, or cannot, be reported about the evidence discussed during today's proceedings.

A key issue expected to go before the inquest, due to start in October, are Mr al Fayed's claims that Diana was pregnant with Dodi's child and that they were murdered in an establishment and secret service plot masterminded by the Duke of Edinburgh.

Mr Burnett told the coroner that Robin Tam QC had now been appointed to represent the interests of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS).

Mr Burnett said he understood Mr Tam would at some stage be making submissions that certain SIS material was not relevant to the inquest "and should be kept out as an issue".

http://tinyurl.com/2cbkgl
(London Evening Standard)
(Edited 16 June - too much blah about costs)

It's all being done "by degrees".

A little bit here - "because of the French"
A little bit there - "for the families"
A little bit here - "in the public interest"
A little bit there - "because of costs"
A little bit here - "on the grounds of decency"
A little bit there - "cos SIS sez so"


It's all so sad.
Al Fayed could cut him off at the knees.
But he's too selfish and self-centred.




Added on edit

The material that SIS are trying to suppress is already in the public domain in the form of an affidavit sworn by Richard Tomlinson. The text of that affidavit is on this thread here
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 906#109906

[antiaristo]

.

This is a cross-post from "Royal prerogative on trial". I promised Starman something on PII on this thread.


Back in March the world's greatest coroner issued a "Finding" which included these excerpts:

6. The coroner may choose to disclose material beyond that strictly required by judicial decisions. It does not, of course, include all documentation or exhibits received or seen by the coroner. Relevance remains the main criterion. The coroner also has to take into account sensitive material and the extent to which some documents should be excluded from disclosure. Issues as to public interest immunity may well arise to a limited extent in these inquests.
........

10. Mr Johnson, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, represented the Government to assist in respect of certain of the documentation. It is well known that Operation Paget investigated, as one of the various conspiracy theories, those which appeared to originate in early suggestions from Mr Tomlinson, a former SIS officer. It is in connection with that aspect of the investigation that issues of PII may well arise.
........

13. At the hearing on the 21st March agreement was reached by counsel seeking disclosure with Mr Lawson QC for the Metropolis, which I support, that the underlying material expressly referred to and relied upon by Operation Paget in compiling the Stevens Report would be disclosed, subject to my consideration of the questions of sensitivity and public interest immunity. To enable relatively quick disclosure to take place I may well need to deal with sensitivity and PII provisionally and on a precautionary basis, but review the issues later.
....

http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/d ... 210307.htm

She's lining up PII to exclude the Tomlinson affidavit.

But the new guy seems to have a different approach:

Lord Scott-Baker will also now have to read documents submitted by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) to Operation Paget - a job Robin Tam, QC, for the SIS said would take him about a week, and would not be "an entertaining read".

The coroner must read the documents to decide whether they can be disclosed to Mr Fayed's lawyers. Mr Tam said there was nothing in them that was relevant to the inquest and therefore they should not be disclosed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ana114.xml


Can you see what has happened? The burden of proof has shifted.

Under PII a judge will automatically grant the government's request (I'll come back to why that is shortly).

But here the judge must read the documents to confirm that what SIS says is true, that they are not relevant. SIS must "prove" its case.

So it cannot be PII.
That's significant because it is LORD PETER GOLDSMITH who must sign the certificate.

They don't want to use the PII device while the world watches, simply because it is so crooked, and to be wielded by a known crook.

Here are some excerpts from Wiki:

History

PII was previously known as Crown privilege, and derived from the same principle as the immunity of the Crown from prosecution before the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. However, PII is not limited to the Crown (see the NSPCC case mentioned below), and cannot be waived save in exceptional circumstances.

You see? "Public Interest Immunity" is in reality "Crown Interest Immunity" or "Royal Prerogative". They changed the name for public relations purposes, and justified the change in meaning by just once (once!) allowing a non-royal party to use the device.

And that's why a judge NEVER refuses a PII. It's a direct order from he Queen.

And from that same WIKI source is this:

Crown Prosecution Service v Cornish Stannary Parliament [2002] - A Public Interest Immunity Certificate was presented to the court by the Crown Prosecution Service after about ten minutes of this hearing. A possible reason for the introduction of the PII certificate, given by the Stannary Parliament, was that the Duchy of Cornwall refuses to reveal the circumstances under which it transferred several of its properties (including Tintagel Castle) to the care of English Heritage.

You know who is the "Duchy of Cornwall" don't you? It's our old friend Prince Charles.

He got himself into a pickle with some dubious asset transfers.

So the government rode to the rescue with a PII.

So you can see how and why the Establishment, the Windsor family, are now reluctant to be seen utilising royal powers to exclude evidence from the inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales.

Another small victory over Goldsmith's grinning gob?

The wiki info on PII is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Immunity

[antiaristo]

.

The new "hard man" has issued his first no nonsense decisions. A couple of pages to be found here
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/d ... 062007.pdf

For my purposes these are the parts of interest.

3. Operation Paget, acting as Coroner’s officers, will use their best endeavours to provide to Interested Persons by 2nd July 2007 schedules of statements and other evidential documents obtained in the course of their investigation (with summaries of contents).

"best endeavours" - is that all? So maybe they will succeed, and maybe they won't.

"Schedules of statements" - that is just a list, is it not? "Operation Paget" has been going on for three and a half years. And they don't have a "schedule" to hand, six months after submitting the report?

"summaries of contents" - here we get to the core. The whole idea behind the coroner's inquest is the public venting of facts. It is for the jury to decide. But in this case not so. Here it is for faceless bureaucrats to provide "summaries".

This is all about the Victor Mishcon documents identified as VM/1 and VM/2.

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).

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 Scotland Yard (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.

(Paget/Stevens Report page 97)


Now why do you think Lord Mishcon took the trouble to draft this note in his own hand? For one thing a handwritten note cannot be falsified. In fact, the only way to falsify a handwritten note is to provide only a summary.........

And why do you think Lord Mishcon took the trouble to read the note aloud to Condon and Veness in person? They could hardly later claim they "did not know", could they?

The "hard man" is there to make sure those two documents never see the light of day. They have hardly waited all this time for the old man to die to then let him speak from the grave.


Next, to deal with Tomlinson:

4. The Treasury Solicitor will provide to the Coroner’s Office: (a) a bundle containing redacted copies of statements and one other document expressly referred to and relied upon in Chapter 16 of the Stevens / Crime Report; (b) a redacted copy of the manuscript of Chapter 8 of a document entitled ‘I Spy’.

5. The documents referred to under paragraph 4 above [‘the SIS documents’] are to be disclosed to each of the Interested Persons, subject to his/her existing undertakings as to confidentiality and subject to him/her signing an additional undertaking in the following terms: ‘I undertake that neither I nor my representatives will directly refer to the contents of the SIS documents in open Court unless the Coroner orders otherwise.’

6. The Coroner, or appropriate counsel on his behalf, will review (i) the telegram communications between the SIS station in Paris and London between 14th July 1997 and 14th September 1997 and (ii) the file referred to as Operation Battle, with a view to considering the relevance of their contents.

None of THAT is coming into open court.

On the other hand lets have LOTS AND LOTS of expert witnesses to argue with each other and fill up whatever time we have:

7. The following directions will apply to expert evidence.

(a) The Interested Persons will by 2nd July 2007 provide to the Coroner first reports of the experts instructed by them in the fields of toxicology, pathology and podiatry.

(b) Those experts will confer with experts in like discipline instructed on behalf of the Coroner, and will produce with them joint reports identifying areas of agreement and disagreement. Those joint reports are to be provided to the Coroner by 30th July 2007.

(c) Any report by an expert in the field of photogrammetry will be provided to the Coroner by 2nd July 2007.

(d) The experts in road traffic issues instructed by the Coroner and the experts of Interested Persons (Mr Kinnen and Dr Searle) will by 2nd July 2007 discuss questions concerning the validity of the computer model and any questions which have arisen concerning methodology.

(e) Mr Kinnen and Dr Searle will by 30th July 2007 produce their first reports, setting out their provisional conclusions and areas for further inquiry.

Nothing there about "best endeavours" is there? It's all "WILL". Because that's what the judge wants to talk about.

ANYTHING other than Lord Mishcon.
ANYTHING other than Paul Burrell.
(nothing about the note from the Princess, is there?)

EVERYTHING I've seen since the publication of the Paget/Stevens Report is consistent with the hypothesis put forward at the outset.

This murder had NOTHING to do with al Fayed.

Any views?

[Byrne]

The Scotsman - Thu 14 Jun 2007

Coroner holds preliminary Diana hearing
JOHN ASTON

THE new coroner for the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, took charge of the case in court yesterday, initially banning the media from reporting details of evidence that might go before a jury.

Lord Justice Scott Baker held a preliminary hearing after replacing Baroness Butler-Sloss in the post.

He later lifted the gag following opposition from lawyers, including Michael Mansfield, QC, representing Mohamed al-Fayed, whose son, Dodi, was killed alongside the princess. As he began his first dealings in public as coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker issued a warning shot at the High Court in London over costs of the inquests, which have to be met by the taxpayer.

"It is the duty of all of us to keep them within reasonable bounds," he said.

In his opening statement, he asserted that "tight discipline" was needed to make sure unnecessary witnesses were not called.

Mr Burnett outlined the timetable for the inquest, with a start date of 2 October. He suggested it should not last more than six months.

Following an opening statement from the coroner and scene-setting evidence about the car journey, French witnesses could first give evidence via video-link from Paris on 8 October, Mr Burnett added.

Mr Burnett said further pre-inquest hearings could be held in July and September.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =928612007

Unnecessary witnesses?

[antiaristo]

Unnecessary witnesses?

Byrne,

Of course.

An unnecessary witness is one who takes us away from the scripted outcome.
The scripted outcome is the outcome to be reverse-engineered. Like Lockerbie; like Barry George; like NIST (slim); like so many others.

There are two main lines of inquiry here.

One is the "al Fayed" line. This was a MI6 hit, and she was hit because of the al Fayed connection.

Then there is the "Burrell" line. There would be a hit by "my husband", and she would be hit "in order to make the path clear for him to marry".

Only one line of investigation was pursued by Lord Stevens (which is NOT what was specified in his terms of reference). The Paget report was 99 percent al Fayed.

It's the line that has been pushed consistently in the media.
The title of this thread - "Dodi real target..." is a subset of this line.

What of the other line?

It was not investigated by Lord Stevens. Even though this contradicts the judgement he made when Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

He mentions en passant the Victor Mishcon activities, then leaves the associated documents lying fallow, never again to be raised.

He misquotes the Diana letter to Paul Burrell, then does so again, and thereby avoids repeating the charge made by Diana against her husband.

He publishes this deeply flawed document, which is not the statutory Coroner's report, then hands over to the Coroner.

Lady Butler-Sloss takes over.

She is "unable to locate" the Diana letter to Paul Burrell, even though it was submitted to the Coroner for safe keeping. We still have had no sight of Diana's allegations against the Heir to the British Throne.

She takes it upon herself to alter the evidence. She removes the references by Paul Burrell to his meeting with Queen Elizabeth a few days after Diana's death, where he was told

"Paul, be careful. There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."

She hands over to yet another (neophyte) coroner.

Lord Scott Baker issues his own decrees.
We (and the jury, if ever it forms) are to be allowed to see "summaries" of the key documents.

For some reason he will not allow us to see the note writen by hand by her most intimate advisor, Lord Mishcon of Lambeth.
_____________________________


It's pretty obvious that a pre-determined outcome is being reverse-engineered as we look on. The al Fayed line is being heavily promoted, while everything connected to the Burrell angle is being consistently played-down or even hidden.

I think I know what is being hidden, as everybody on this board is aware.

But even if you do not accept what I say about the TFA, can anybody seriously dispute that something rather large is being hidden by the Establishment tools who are running this process?

If there IS any dispute I wish you would speak up and let us know.

I suppose the only remaining question is whether this theatre now serves any practical purpose at all.

Let's just enjoy it as theatre: they are ALL acting.
Mansfield has been outed http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 229#119229


Next al Fayed himself?



Added on edit


I've just been looking at the inquest website.
It may be nothing, it may be an effort to close the stable door.

There is no mention whatsoever of the Paget/Stevens report. The report is still available elsewhere on the Net, but not on the site of the commissioning inquest.

I suppose they had to do that, what with Butler-Sloss trying to take back the Burrell evidence and what the Queen had said to him. But it's a tad embarrassing.

As for the future

Documentary evidence

The Deputy Coroner will decide whether to make documentary evidence available on this website during the hearings.

©2007 Judicial Communications Office

Once bitten twice shy.

[Byrne]

Any change of a 9 bob note?

Another security-related appointment came in the form of former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens, who will advise Mr [Gordon] Brown on security matters.

The Scotsman, 30 Jun 2007

I don't think so....

[antiaristo]

duplicate post

[antiaristo]

duplicate post

[antiaristo]

.

I've been trying to post this for TWO HOURS.
How many postings are we losing?

_____________________

There was another "pre-inquest" hearing today. The reporting is pretty patchy, and the most informative account is from something called Life Style Extra.

UK News
Queen 'Should Give Evidence At Diana Inquest'

Monday, 9th July 2007, 12:16


The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh should be called as witnesses to the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, it was argued today.

A further pre-inquest hearing at the High Court today was told both Her Majesty and the Duke should be quizzed over Diana's death in Paris 10 years ago this summer.

And Diana's own words will be heard from beyond the grave at the inquest when a 10-page hand-written letter she sent to her butler, Paul Burrell, expressing fears she would be killed in a car crash, will be presented as evidence in the full inquest.

Mohammed Al-Fayed, whose son Dodi is also the subject of the proceedings, sat stony faced, dressed in a grey suit for this morning's hearing.

Speaking on behalf of the Harrod's owner, Michael Mansfield QC urged Lord Justice Scott Baker, who replaced Baroness Butler-Sloss as coroner, to question the Queen.

Mr Mansfield said: "This has been raised before, but there is further material on this topic.

"There is a conversation alleged by Mr Burrell with Her Majesty relating to what he either refers to as other forces, or powers at work within the state.

"At this stage we are merely asking she is approached as a witness to ascertain whether this material alleged is true.

"We then deal with his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. This concerns fears that Diana has expressed and the letters that are said to have been sent by him to her.

"Obvious enquiries are firstly whether he was aware of any of the fears she expressed, and secondly whether he sent any of the letters.

"His Royal Highness was approached, but on a telephone message indicated an unwillingness to speak to the Paget Inquiry."

Mr Mansfield said the note sent to Mr Burrell by Diana had been shown in a national paper as a single page, but in fact consisted of 10 sides of paper.

He continued: "Last week the additional pages were seen. There are in fact 10 sides, five sheets of paper.

"The Paget report never does indicate it saw the original, and there are differing police recollections as to whether they did so.

"The request I am making is the note is submitted to testing.

"What Burrell said in his book was this note was dated and it is clear from other letters that have been returned by Mohammed Al-Fayed, there is a heading 'Kensington Palace' at the top that is not found on this sheet.

"The question is, was there another sheet at the front? Are there any indentations from that sheet on the sheet that could be raised by the testing process?"

Mr Mansfield said there was confusion about the letter because Mr Burrell's evidence claims Diana left the letter on his blotting pad, but claims in his book she gave it to him in an envelope.

He said it was difficult to contact the former butler because he is in the United States, adding: "He doesn't appear to have been particularly co-operative."

One of the mysteries surrounding the Diana case has been the allegation a white Fiat Uno caused Diana's Mercedes to veer out of control.

Mr Mansfield claimed there was a witness who saw the alleged driver, James Andanson, in Paris.

He said: "There are witnesses who indicate he was in Paris. Whether he was driving a white Fiat Uno is a separate matter.

"There is a witness, Jacques Morrell, who is claiming Andanson was in the tunnel.

"Part of his identification of Andanson comes from something that is referred to as confidential reports."

He said it was not clear what these confidential reports were, and urged the court to request the information from investigating officers.

The hearing was also told that a large marquee will be set up in the courtyard of the High Court to accommodate hundreds of journalists and members of the public who want to watch the full inquest.

Lord Justice Scott Baker said: "Arrangements are already well under way for an annex to the court of a semi permanent structure in the quadrangle which will house 300 people: the media and the public. It will be split into two."

A permanent administrator has been appointed to the case and three assistants will also help with the paperwork.

A further hearing will take place towards the end of July. The hearing continues

http://tinyurl.com/36muys


1 I do not understand why Mansfield is so vague about what Burrell said about his conversation with Queen Elizabeth. It's in his book, it's in the Mirror excerpts, it's on a number of sites on the Web. She said:

"Paul, be careful. There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."

2 "The Paget report never does indicate it saw the original, and there are differing police recollections as to whether they did so."

As I ask in Data Dump, why did the report misquote her words on multiple occasions? No wonder they "do not remember" whether they saw the original. Because that cannot be excused as anything other than deliberately misleading. So they don't want to talk about it.


3 Well well well. Burrell is in the United States and not being very co-operative. Some might be tempted to invoke The Godfather, with Michael heading off to the old country until the heat dies down. But for me this replicates the infamous Lord Archer libel case against the Daily Star in 1987. He sent Michael Stackpole out of the country for the duration, and it was Michael Stackpole who had been captured on camera handing Monica Coghlan an envelope stuffed with cash.


4 The Burrell letter has re-appeared, but appears to have been tampered with. It has been in the hands of the coroner since 6 January 2004. Is this not turning into another Lockerbie or Barry George, with the state fabricating evidence?
(NB There is a controversial image of the letter here:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1402 )

5 Still no mention of the note handwritten by Lord Mishcon in September 1995 and read aloud to Condon and Venness in September 1997.


Later on the coroner gave his ruling

Diana coroner rejects Queen call

The coroner for Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed's inquests has said he will not involve the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh in the case at this stage.

Lord Justice Scott Baker said it was neither "appropriate or necessary" now but he would review his position.

He was responding to requests made by Michael Mansfield QC, for Dodi's father Mohammed Al Fayed, at a hearing ahead of the inquests due in October.

Diana and Dodi died in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

'Powers at work'

Mr Mansfield had asked the coroner to urge Prince Philip to "answer inquiries" and the Queen to agree to be a "potential witness".

But Lord Justice Scott Baker told the High Court hearing: "It doesn't seem to me that any further inquiries at this stage would be appropriate or necessary."

Mr Mansfield said he wanted the Queen to be asked about a conversation she allegedly had with former royal butler Paul Burrell, referring to "other forces or powers at work within the state".

He also raised the issue of the duke allegedly sending what one witness described as "nasty" letters to the princess.

Mr Mansfield said the Metropolitan Police inquiry into the deaths - which concluded they were a tragic accident - did not make any of these inquiries.

It also emerged that Diana's original note to Mr Burrell containing claims that her husband was "planning an accident in my car" had been obtained for the inquest.

Mr Al Fayed, owner of Harrods department store, alleges the crash was part of a secret plot by the British establishment.

Lord Justice Scott Baker replaced Baroness Butler-Sloss in June when she stepped down saying she lacked the experience required to deal with an inquest with a jury.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6284302.stm


All we are learning here is that the entire Windsor family is untouchable by the law. Last week it was Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret*. This week it is the other three "senior royals".


For those interested there is a related post I made today here
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 955#120955


*

From The Times
July 6, 2007

Judge pours scorn on royal pretender’s love-child claim

Jack Malvern

An accountant who claims to be the illegitimate son of Princess Margaret was thwarted in his attempt to access her will at the High Court yesterday.

Robert Brown, 52, from Jersey, was refused permission to read the wills of the late Princess Margaret and the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother because his request was considered “vexatious and an abuse of process, made solely for the purpose of seeking to establish an imaginary and baseless claim”. SirMark Potter, President of the Family Division, handed down a judgment asserting that Mr Brown was “no more than a meddlesome busybody”.

The accountant, who intends to appeal, wishes to view the wills to confirm a sincerely held belief that he is the son of Princess Margaret and her lover, Group Captain Peter Townsend. He believes that the late Cynthia Brown, who brought him up and is listed as his mother on his birth certificate, treated him as her own as a favour to the Princess and to avert a scandal.

Sir Mark ruled that Mr Brown’s application to unseal the wills did not represent the public interest and that his private interest lacked any foundation in reality. “It is indeed apparent from his own affidavit that it is illusory. Thus to proceed further with the application . . . would be a waste of time and expense . . . and would amount to an abuse of process.”

Mr Brown’s claim that he was entitled to view the wills under the Human Rights Act specifically, the right to respect for private and family life was also dismissed. “A claimant is entitled to respect for the existence and development of his or her real family life under Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] and not for a fantasy family life, the product of his or her imagination. There is no evidence and can be no realistic suggestion that the plaintiff’s real private or family life is related in any way to that of the Royal Family.”

Mr Brown said outside the court that he felt he had no option but to seek permission to appeal. He said: “It is deeply worrying, but I have a need to resolve this. It is simply a matter of identity. It is not an attempt to embarrass the Royal Family.”

Frank Hinks, QC, acting for the executors of the estates of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother, and John Lofthouse, for the Attorney-General, said that they did not seek costs for the hearing but reserved the right to do so if there was an appeal.

• HAVE YOUR SAY


The matter of genetic origin could have easily been solved by a genetic test on the claimant. Why did the matter have to go to court at a much higher cost to the tax payer and resulting in an inconclusive result? ??I would propose that it is the judge that abused the process by neglecting to use the resources at his disposal, to conclusively solve the case.

Eleanor Chibwe, Wolverhampton, UK

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 034092.ece

[slimmouse]

.


The matter of genetic origin could have easily been solved by a genetic test on the claimant. Why did the matter have to go to court at a much higher cost to the tax payer and resulting in an inconclusive result? ??I would propose that it is the judge that abused the process by neglecting to use the resources at his disposal, to conclusively solve the case.

Eleanor Chibwe, Wolverhampton, UK

Oh man, now that would be something.

Some published DNA samples from 'the untouchables'

[antiaristo]

.

Oh man, now that would be something.

Some published DNA samples from 'the untouchables'

Heh heh heh.
Right on slim.

You know they are absolutely paranoid about DNA samples getting into public hands. They cart around their own portable Royal Khazis when travelling. They dare not take the risk that some of the great unwashed will conspire to poach one of the Royal Turds.

Are they a different colour, like their blood?

I'm pretty sure of one thing, though. that your friend Mr Icke would absolutely LOVE to get hold of some Windsor DNA.


I've been thinking a bit more about what I wrote about Michael Stackpoole above. How his role in the Archer/Star libel case mirrors exactly what seems to be going on with Paul Burrell. I've gone back into the archives and put together a little compilation in Data Dump.

I've yet to editorialise, but there's already enough source material there to identify some pretty profound commonalities with the Diana inquest.

There's security services involvement, followed by hididng evidence. There's witness tampering and (I believe) murder. There's the use of "national security" to prevent scrutiny of the key document (the diary). And there's even an appearance by the brother of Lady Butler Sloss.

A little while ago, on another thread here, I read an EXCELLENT quote from John Judge.


"And at the same time it is possible to expose how they do it; and to break the cycle of the lies; and to catch up with it; and to understand who's assassinating whom, and how. Because the techniques work and they use them over. They're not that hard to figure out, once you understand the personnel and the pattern."

I could not agree more.
That's here in spades.
Read what happened in the English court with Archer.
And see the future of the Diana Inquest.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=12325

[antiaristo]

.


The Daily Express is the British newspaper that has taken the lead in covering the Diana saga from a sympathetic standpoint. Apparently with the support and connivance of Mohammed al Fayed.*

I believe that The Express has in fact muddied the waters and will continue to do so. In other words the Express is deliberately poisoning the well, and is best avoided if at all possible.

The Express Group is owned by Richard Desmond. He bought the titles when Lord Clive Hollick was forced to sell.

Richard Desmond made his money as a pornographer.

Now we're hypocrites: everyone likes porn.

But the Desmond stable was not nice. Titles like "Asian Babes", "Big Ones", "Skiny and Wriggly" and "Old Hags" give an idea of the markets he served.

There had been a clear legal precedent that no pornographer, no matter how nice, could be allowed to take over ANY respectable newspaper, let alone a national title and a group like The Express. But Tony fixed it for him.
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 1678#81678

That's the background. Richard Desmond is FAVOURED by the Establishment, even though he is a nutcase.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/ ... 81,00.html

I'm now going to present evidence for how this (hidden) loyalty plays out in practice. There are many possible examples, but I'll use the most recent. The reporting on the latest "pre-inquest" hearing.

This is about half of the report.

DIANA'S FEAR OF MURDER


CONSPIRACY: Dodi Fayed's father Mohammed believes Diana was pregnant with his son's child
Tuesday July 10,2007
By Richard Palmer, Royal Correspondent


A LETTER in which Princess Diana claimed Prince Charles wanted her killed will be presented in evidence in full{1} for the first time at her inquest.

In the ten-page document she chillingly reveals her growing fears for her life, saying: “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car.”

She also claims the heir to the throne wanted her dead so that he would be free to marry Camilla{2}. Extra pages of the letter, which have never been made public, were found by lawyers investigating her death.

The full hand-written letter had originally been presented as just one sheet of paper but it is actually ten sides long and covers five sheets. A preliminary hearing  at the High Court in London yesterday was told that Scotland Yard detectives investigating the death have given conflicting accounts of how much of it they have seen.{3}

Now a fuller version of her own words will be heard at the inquest{4}, which starts on October 2. However, it is not clear whether the jury will be able to see the entire document.

The letter was written 10 months before Diana died in a 1997 Paris car smash with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed. Her former butler Paul Burrell said she gave it to him as insurance.In the brief excerpt that has been released to the public, she writes: “This particular phase of my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry.”

However, Operation Paget – the £3.69million Scotland Yard inquiry  which concluded that Diana died in an accident – dismissed the letter, saying it found no evidence to support her concerns.{5}

But Michael Mansfield, QC, for Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed, told the hearing yesterday: “The Paget report never does indicate it saw the original, and there are differing police recollections as to whether they did so.” He asked for tests to find indentations that might reveal the existence of a still-concealed top page containing a date and the name of the intended recipient.{6}

The development came as the coroner overseeing the inquest rejected calls for the Queen and Prince Philip to be questioned as witnesses. Lord Justice Scott Baker’s decision infuriated lawyers trying to investigate claims that Diana was murdered.

He insisted it was neither appropriate nor necessary to ask Philip about letters he is said to have written to the Princess and to question the monarch about a warning that she is alleged to have given Mr Burrell about “dark forces” at work.{7}

The refusal came despite claims by Mr Al Fayed that the couple were murdered in an MI5 plot {8}masterminded by the Duke of Edin­burgh because Diana was pregnant with Dodi’s child.

(more)
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/news/view/12978/Diana


{1} This opening sentence is nonsense, and contradicted within the text of the story. The jury might not get to see all of the letter, and the ten pages might not amount to the letter "in full".

{2} Diana made no reference to Camilla. Her written words ended "...in order to make the path clear for him to marry."
There is no name.
Only Charles Windsor benefits from this adulteration of the facts.

{3} The police have given no account of this document at all, and they have acted as though it did not exist. Indeed the last Coroner, Lady Butler Sloss, even confessed that she was "unable to locate the letter".

{4} The full version of her words has been in the public domain since 6 January 2004. Yet in the strange world the Express inhabits this is "news".

{5} The police did NOT dismiss the letter; indeed they could not dismiss the letter because of the corroboration afforded by Lord Mishcon (VM/1 in the Paget Report). Instead they simply ignored the letter, as though it had never existed, and responded to newspaper reports about the letter. Misquotes and all.

{6} There is no mention of the missing Kensington Palace letterhead, which she ALWAYS employed as the first page of any note. THAT is the page that is missing.

{7} "dark forces" at work.
Hey, Hugh. Does this count as your favourite theme?

It was Dr david Kelly who wrote to Judith Miller about "dark actors playing games". And this was often retold as "dark forces".

The Burrell quote from the Queen is in Burrell's book. According to that book, and the Daily Mirror serialisation, her words to him were:

"Paul, be careful. There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."

How come I know that, but Richard Palmer does not?

{8} What's this about "an MI5 plot"?

Henri Paul worked for SIS/MI6
Richard Tomlinson worked for SIS/MI6.
The "Milosevich plot" he described was a SIS/MI6 operation.
And of course the murder was carried out abroad.
So why confuse matters with the introduction of MI5?


That's EIGHT deliberately misleading statements in a text of less than five hundred words.
So
BEWARE of The Daily Express.

[antiaristo]

There's NOTHING coming out of the official inquest.

Having started out with a "full disclosure" policy, the Stevens/Paget report has been removed from the site, and this week the hard man has given us this.

1. The experts instructed on behalf of the Coroner in the fields of toxicology and pathology shall confer with the experts instructed by Interested Persons in the same fields.

2. Those experts shall produce a joint report setting out:

1. the views of the experts instructed by Interested Persons;

2. any matters raised by the experts instructed on behalf of the Coroner which do not appear in their reports;

3. areas of agreement between the experts;

4. areas of disagreement between the experts.

3. That report shall be prepared by the experts themselves and signed by them.  It shall be provided to the Coroner by 4pm on 26th July 2007.

4. Further pre-inquest hearings are set for the following dates:
1. 27th July 2007 at 10.00 am;
2. a date to be fixed in the first week of September 2007.

That's it. Toxicology/pathology for dummies.
And ambiguous, to boot.

He intends to fix the "Henri Paul drunk" conclusion into the investigation process.

It's very noteworthy that this meme was inserted into the public consciousness right at the beginning, in the same way that the "Bin Laden/19 Arab hijackers" meme was inserted into the 9/11 story for public consumption.

It is accorded the status quo ante, the default position, from which any variance must be justified with hard evidence. The burden of proof is on those who say otherwise.

No real effort is made to get to the truth.

The whole thing becomes hopelessly confused, nobody can agree on or prove anything. And the status quo ante stands.

That's the strategy.
Assert drunk driver, and no further analysis required, so we can save the taxpayer's money.

So I'll sniff the zeitgeist instead.
And the zeitgeist is all about the tenth anniversary.

This surprising piece was in the papers yesterday

Prince William ends rift by asking Fayed sisters to Diana memorial service
Last updated at 18:29pm on 20th July 2007
Comments (5)

Princes William and Harry have By Royal Correspondent invited Mohamed Al Fayed's daughter to a service marking the tenth anniversary of their mother's death.

Camilla Fayed, 21, will attend the tribute to Diana at the Guards' Chapel, Wellington Barracks, on August 31.

The princes' decision to ask Miss Fayed to join them and other senior members of the Royal Family at a highly-public event was made in spite of her father's persistent claims that Diana was murdered.

The Harrods owner, whose son Dodi died with the princess in the Paris car crash, has accused the Duke of Edinburgh of ordering security services to engineer the smash because he could not bear the idea of her having a relationship with a Muslim.

He has also claimed that the princesswas pregnant with Dodi's baby and that the couple planned to marry and move to America.

Although the allegations have deeply upset Diana's close family and friends, sources close to the princes said they thought it was "appropriate" for Miss Fayed, who was Dodi's half-sister, to be invited.

They lost a mother in very tragic circumstances but Camilla also lost a much-loved brother," said one.

"Obviously it would have been impossible to invite Mohamed but they thought it appropriate that someone from his family was invited and, as they have met Camilla in the past, the invitation was extended to her. They are delighted that she has accepted.

"I wouldn't go so far as to say that the past is gone and forgotten but William and Harry want to acknowledge their shared grief."
Both Prince Philip and the Queen will attend the service, as will the Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and members of Diana's family.

Mr Al Fayed's lawyers recently called for the Queen to be a potent witness and for the Duke of Edinburgh to answer inquiries for the inquest into the princess's death, which is due to begin on October 2, but coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker rejected the requests.
The next pre-inquest hearing will be held on July 27.

Clarence House declined to discuss the guest list yesterday while a spokesman for Mr Al Fayed said he would not comment on such a private matter.

I don't know what, but something is going on.

William "knows" Camilla al Fayed.

William knows Paul Burrell.

Paul Burrell was a replacement father for William. He dealt with the most sensitive personal issues for an adolescent.

Paul Burrell was called "My rock" by the woman they are "remembering".

ALL the other men let her down.

Do you think William will invite Paul Burrell?
No. Nor do I.

(bolded part added on edit)


This is the broader context, what this is really all about.

Camilla's annus horribilis - why the shadow of Diana is making her sick with worry

by GEOFFREY LEVY and RICHARD KAY - More by this author »
Last updated at 12:28pm on 8th July 2007
Comments (9)

The first fitting at Madame Tussaud's has already taken place, and the Duchess of Cornwall is said to be "quite excited" that her figure will soon be standing alongside Prince Charles in the famous London waxworks, together with his sons, William and Harry. She is very involved and will soon be choosing the clothes.

What more satisfying birthday present could there possibly be for the former Mrs Parker Bowles when she reaches 60 in ten days' time, though her model won't, in fact, be ready to go on show for some weeks.
Still, she's an inordinately patient woman. Wasn't that how she got to marry the Prince of Wales some 33 years after first meeting him?

Princess Diana's figure has graced Madame Tussaud's for years, of course, not next to her former husband but, as the waxworks discreetly puts it, "nearby".

There are no plans to move her after Camilla's arrival - she is a huge draw.

And why change a royal tableau in which she and the older woman who displaced her can be compared in a piquant setting that is bound to bring the tourists flooding in?
But isn't it odd, bizarre almost, that the two women are being brought together as finely-clothed waxen images not only as Camilla reaches her 60th birthday on July 17 but as Diana at her most dazzling is reawakened by the tenth anniversary of her death.

Barely a moment ago, Camilla's waxworks image in the place where the famous finally come to rest was being seen by her friends as a triumph of final public acceptance.

But one event has suddenly changed the landscape - that Wembley concert last weekend. The fact that upwards of 15 million people watched it on television in this country alone - and heaven knows how many millions more round the world - and saw the emotional re-runs of Diana's most endearing moments comforting the sick and the disadvantaged, has turned the summer of Camilla's birthday into a period during which, according to friends, "she is sick with worry".

"This is becoming Diana's summer," the Duchess has confided to friends. "How will I get through it?"

The Wembley concert was merely the overture to her discomfort. Ahead of Camilla lies a day that she is said to be "dreading" - the memorial service for Diana at the Guards Chapel just across the road from Buckingham Palace, on August 31, the tenth anniversary of the princess's death at the age of 36.

Clarence House has made all the arrangements. The congregation will consist of some 700 of the great and the good, a selection of Diana's old friends, her family, her children, and the usual smattering of pop stars and entertainers without whom, it is always assumed, no Diana occasion would be complete.

And there, sitting in the front row of the very chapel where in 1973 she married the then Captain Andrew Parker Bowles of the Blues and Royals, will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.

Camilla's presence at Diana's memorial service - let alone sitting with the Prince of Wales in the most prominent pew - is in danger of turning the historic military chapel hung with battlehonoured regimental standards into a cauldron of suppressed public anger.

Already it is reviving painful memories of the royal wedding day in 1981 when Lady Diana walked down the aisle of StPaul's Cathedral on her father Earl Spencer's rather frail arm, her eyes anxiously roving the congregation for sight of the woman she knew was her love rival - and spotting her, wearing a grey pill-box hat, sitting with small son Tom in the sixth row.

Even among Camilla's friends, there is a growing fear that for her to be present in the chapel next month will be a mistake. Among Diana's friends, the phrase they use is "a mockery".

They blame Prince Charles.

"I'm sure Camilla would rather not be there but the prince is insisting she accompanies him," says one of her circle.

"Camilla's not a fool - she knows it would be better for her to stay well away because she realises she will be absolutely out of place. It's a wretched situation and she's right to be nervy.

"Even as her friend, I have to concede that she was his mistress, blatantly and without shame, and she helped to make Diana very unhappy.

"Camilla got what she wanted and now to sit with the prince in pride of place as Diana is remembered would be gross hypocrisy and plain wrong. The prince should let her stay away - a sudden bad back on the day would be very useful."

Charles's stubborn insistence on any matter, as his friends and staff know only too well, is not something to be easily balanced against common sense.

In this instance, he believes that as the wife of the heir to the throne, it is Camilla's right - indeed, her duty - to be at his side for this important national service.

He feels that because the occasion will receive worldwide television and news coverage, for the Duchess to be absent would be interpreted as a shadowy admission of guilt and result in even more negative comment than if she was there.

He is also convinced that Camilla's absence could be interpreted as a pusillanimous retreat from his relentless campaign to make her his Queen one day.

On the other hand, Diana's friends simply cannot conceive how either the Prince of Wales or Camilla can see any benefit in her being present at this sensitive and emotional tribute to the late Princess.

To be fair to the Duchess of Cornwall, she is trapped in a classic 'Catch 22' situation - damned if she attends the service, and damned if she stays away.

Meanwhile, as that significant birthday approaches, she is said to have been carrying out a little tidying up here and there around Clarence House.

The word emanating from there is that a number of wedding presents to Charles and Diana which were put out on show when he moved in after the Queen Mother's death are no longer to be seen. They are understood to have been removed to Windsor Castle and placed in the storage vaults. So another link with the past is cut.

But how quickly things can change.

Just a few months ago, Camilla was apparently doing really well rehabilitating herself with the British people. She was saying the right things, smiling at the right time, and, despite observations that she was still as lazy as she used to be, the public was definitely beginning to warm to her.

In particular, they liked her informal manner - a perfect foil for Charles's stiffness.

Things then began to go wrong at the very moment they should have taken a bound skywards, when the Duchess, who is 16 months older than Charles, went into hospital for a hysterectomy.

Public sympathy was tested when it emerged that she was not only taking her own mattress into the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers in London but departing even further from hospital rules by using her own personal bed linen.

She also rejected the private hospital's food - comparable to a five-star hotel and good enough for the Queen, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret.

Instead, everything she ate was prepared a mile away in the kitchens of Clarence House.
The tale of the princess and pea comes to mind, especially as the Duchess was in the £500-a-night Marylebone hospital for just three days undergoing the surgical procedure that affects 40,000 other women every year.

So could the Duchess of Cornwall, at 60, really be the very same Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles who, in the years before she became a royal duchess, was forever being talked up by supporters as a woman of earthy tastes and habits, possessor of but a single, and rather dated, evening dress, who loved nothing more than pottering round the garden in jeans and green wellies with a smudge of honest dirt on her cheek?

Camilla is, of course, married to an exceptionally fussy man who has a bad back and often takes his own orthopaedic bed on overseas trips.

Perhaps his influence is also to blame for her reluctance to fly on the scheduled airlines she always used when married to the relatively impecunious Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles.
Meanwhile, the Camilla of old, once welcomed into friends' homes with minimal fuss and positively no formality, appears to have been transformed, since marrying Charles in April 2005, into one of those Princess Margaret-style "guests from hell".

These days, her staff forward lists of likes and dislikes to hostesses - from what food to serve (must be organic, nothing spicy, no cream, plenty of salad, minimum vegetables) to the type of pillow she likes to sleep on.

Such advance instructions are not uncommon among the royals, but Camilla's friends recall with nostalgia the days when she would tuck into steak pie and never put on weight, though as one recalls, "she smoked like a chimney then". She has given up smoking for Charles.

Reaching 60 also finds her a royal Duchess who, one of her old circle observes, "is rather fonder of the bowing and scraping than is good for her - or us, her friends, for that matter.

"We know it's expected because she's the wife of the heir to the throne, but if only she could be the old Camilla and tell the fawners and forelock touchers to b****r off".

But how can she, when it is what Charles wants. They are a unit, she is his "Darling Camilla" - and beware the royal servant who doesn't treat her with exactly the same deference as they treat him.

Some say she is not being grand at all, merely 'guarded' while trying to behave as she knows the Prince wants her to behave, living up to his standards, as it were. All in all, a difficult balancing act.

She is finding that fulfilling the role of a royal Duchess is harder than she thought it would be. No wonder she continues to keep on Ray Mill House, in Wiltshire, which she bought after her divorce, and slips away there for a bit of solitary whenever she can.

Which brings us back to Diana. Television viewers watching the Wembley concert last Sunday heard how Diana refused to jump the queues at Thorpe Park in Surrey when she took the young William and Harry on the rides there.

By comparison, even before marrying Charles, Camilla was permitted to jump the queue at an opening night of a collection of tiaras exhibited at the Victoria & Albert Museum five years ago.

She was 55 then.
We are meant to become wiser as we grow older.
In ten days' time she will be 60. Old enough for a bus pass.

A good moment, perhaps, for a return of the earthy Camilla - and even her waxwork could be fitted with a pair of her old green wellies at Madame Tussaud's.

One thing is sure: it certainly wouldn't harm her chances of being Queen.

http://tinyurl.com/2ddsvj
(Daily Mail)

To thrive as part of the royal family of Britain you must have face, and lots of it. You've got to be able and willing to smile into faces as you are sliding the stiletto into their ribs.

You've got to HATE people.
Remember that Klosters interview, when the mask slipped?

When BBC Royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell asked Prince Charles about his feelings in the run-up to his wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles on 8 April in Windsor, he was given a terse reply.

"I am very glad you have heard of it, anyway," the prince said.

He added quietly to Prince William and Harry: "These bloody people. I can't bear that man. I mean, he's so awful, he really is."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4396515.stm

That's what's going on here. Camilla is the fledgling scion of the Mafia Don. She's been given a knife and told to see off her rival.
And it's all going to be on teevee.

REAL history in the making.

By the way, as it will be on teevee, keep an eye out for those Muslims. Here they are, out of their burkhas.

[sunny]

The princes' decision to ask Miss Fayed to join them and other senior members of the Royal Family at a highly-public event was made in spite of her father's persistent claims that Diana was murdered.

anti, are you of the opinion that the princes are tacitly approving of Fayeds theories by inviting his daughters to such a public event in honor of Diana?(those girls are quite beautiful, btw)

Camilla sounds like a perfect beast. How she could have been more attractive to Charles than Diana, I'm sure I can't imagine. (well, I can, but let's not go there. ) How HE could have attracted Diana is a much larger mystery, even with all his money and rank.

Thank you anti, for keeping us up to date. Keep up the good work.