Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

[antiaristo]

.



Thanks, sunny.

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?

Oh sunny! Now you've gone and done it.
I wrote earlier that I didn't KNOW. But you've asked for an opinion, and that's different.

No, I don't think that's what has happened.
Rather, I think the reverse. That Al Fayed has crossed-over and thrown in his lot with the Windsors.

He knows about this site, because I've told him. From this site he has learned a few things he did not know before.

He has learned the reason for the assassination. He has learned that it was a matter of state.

He has learned that his own counsel, on whom he is totally dependent, is bent and is working for the other side.

He has learned that he cannot win in an English court, even though he won the right to inquest by jury. The jury will decide, based on the evidence, but the Windsors' nominees are shaping that evidence to conform with a false narrative.


There is bad blood between the Windsors and Al Fayed that goes back to the takeover battle for House of Fraser (owners of Harrods). When Diana and Dodi were murdered he not unreasonably inferred that it was done because of this history of emnity.

It was personal. It was a vendetta. And it is that perception of personal vendetta that has driven him these past ten years.

But now he knows it was NOT personal. It was strictly business.

Al Fayed is himself a businessman: he made his money as a gun-runner.

I don't doubt that he has had to make such decisions himself, which resulted in loss of life, and that he regretted that loss of life. But that's business.....

So his drive has evaporated. There IS no vendetta against him. He has lost his interest in causing harm to the Windsors.

He also now appreciates what it is he has taken on, and what the ramifications would be should the jury return any verdict other than accidental death. And he's scared. So he wants to make peace.

As an astute businessman he recognises he has something of value: his endorsement.

When the jury returns the inevitable verdict the whole wide world will expect Mohammed al Fayed to denounce the process as a "fix".

But he won't do that. Instead he will issue some sort of flowery statement and accept the verdict. He will declare the matter closed.

The doubting public will be ridiculed: "Look, the most trenchant critic accepts that he was wrong. That PROVES it was an accident!"

And that will be the end of the matter.

We will never see Lord Mishcon's handwritten note, nor what he said to the Metropolitan Police.

We will never see Diana's handwritten "insurance" letter.

We will never hear Paul Burrell under oath about the "...powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."

The crime will be covered-up. The leaks will be plugged.

And so long as the central actors are prepared to look the people in the face, and lie and lie and lie, they will get away with it.

Camilla's test is coming on 31 August.

For William and Harry, it is for the rest of their lives.

But they will never be short of money.


Added on edit:

See? There it is.
But it never showed up on General Discussion or the Site Index.

The latest post was that of sunny on Sunday 22nd.

So naturally we now have another bluehost dupe.

What's going on?

[antiaristo]

Thanks, sunny.

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?

Oh sunny! Now you've gone and done it.
I wrote earlier that I didn't KNOW. But you've asked for an opinion, and that's different.

No, I don't think that's what has happened.
Rather, I think the reverse. That Al Fayed has crossed-over and thrown in his lot with the Windsors.

He knows about this site, because I've told him. From this site he has learned a few things he did not know before.

He has learned the reason for the assassination. He has learned that it was a matter of state.

He has learned that his own counsel, on whom he is totally dependent, is bent and is working for the other side.

He has learned that he cannot win in an English court, even though he won the right to inquest by jury. The jury will decide, based on the evidence, but the Windsors' nominees are shaping that evidence to conform with a false narrative.


There is bad blood between the Windsors and Al Fayed that goes back to the takeover battle for House of Fraser (owners of Harrods). When Diana and Dodi were murdered he not unreasonably inferred that it was done because of this history of emnity.

It was personal. It was a vendetta. And it is that perception of personal vendetta that has driven him these past ten years.

But now he knows it was NOT personal. It was strictly business.

Al Fayed is himself a businessman: he made his money as a gun-runner.

I don't doubt that he has had to make such decisions himself, which resulted in loss of life, and that he regretted that loss of life. But that's business.....

So his drive has evaporated. There IS no vendetta against him. He has lost his interest in causing harm to the Windsors.

He also now appreciates what it is he has taken on, and what the ramifications would be should the jury return any verdict other than accidental death. And he's scared. So he wants to make peace.

As an astute businessman he recognises he has something of value: his endorsement.

When the jury returns the inevitable verdict the whole wide world will expect Mohammed al Fayed to denounce the process as a "fix".

But he won't do that. Instead he will issue some sort of flowery statement and accept the verdict. He will declare the matter closed.

The doubting public will be ridiculed: "Look, the most trenchant critic accepts that he was wrong. That PROVES it was an accident!"

And that will be the end of the matter.

We will never see Lord Mishcon's handwritten note, nor what he said to the Metropolitan Police.

We will never see Diana's handwritten "insurance" letter.

We will never hear Paul Burrell under oath about the "...powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."

The crime will be covered-up. The leaks will be plugged.

And so long as the central actors are prepared to look the people in the face, and lie and lie and lie, they will get away with it.

Camilla's test is coming on 31 August.

For William and Harry, it is for the rest of their lives.

But they will never be short of money.

[antiaristo]

.

Some lies coming home to roost.

Ten years on, the "drunk driver" premise is falling to pieces.

Yet for ten years the Establishment has brushed off all "conspiracy" claims with the "drunk driver" meme.

It brings to mind the ricin plot that never was, and Colin Powell's lies to the United Nations.

The drunken driver that never was.

STEVENS FACES QUESTIONS ABOUT 'DISCREPANCIES' SURROUNDING DIANA'S DEATH
28.07.07

Former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Stevens is to be questioned about "gross discrepancies" over whether Princess Diana's chauffeur was really drunk on the night she died.

Fresh doubts about Henri Paul - said to have been three times over the alcohol limit when their car cashed in a Paris tunnel - were raised by lawyers for his family at a preliminary hearing of Diana's inquest yesterday.

At the High Court, they said the conflicting evidence fuelled allegations of a "cover-up" over her death.

At the same hearing the coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, outlined 20 questions which he said would help him make a decision on whether the princess was murdered, as Mohamed Al Fayed has claimed.

He said he would attempt to explore all the questions during the six-month inquests into the deaths of Diana and Mr Al Fayed's son Dodi in the 1997 Paris crash.

Richard Keen, QC, for Mr Paul's family, called for Lord Stevens, who headed the Operation Paget inquiry into Diana's death, to become a witness.

He said Lord Stevens had told Mr Paul's parents their son was not drunk at the time of the crash, then a month later concluded in the Operation Paget report that he was three times over the French alcohol limit.

Mr Keen told the court: "What we need to know is why is there such a gross discrepancy between what he was saying on November 9 and what was published on December 14.

"The gross discrepancy highlights the allegation that there has been a cover-up."

Mr Keen said the conclusion of the report could have been 'materially altered' so as to pin the blame on Mr Paul, "a convenient scapegoat".

The coroner confirmed that Lord Stevens would be asked about the matter and that he was a possible witness.

Mr Keen also raised fresh questions about Mr Paul's blood samples. He claimed experts now agreed that a prescribed drug Mr Paul had been taking was not found in his the samples, but one he had not been prescribed was discovered.

Mr Al Fayed's QC Michael Mansfield repeated calls for the Queen to be asked about claims she had told royal butler Paul Burrell there were "powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge".

But the coroner refused, saying: "It has absolutely no relevance whatever. Someone's got to draw a line."

The full inquest is scheduled to start on October 2.

http://tinyurl.com/ypg3n2
(Evening Standard)

Ex-Met chief faces quiz on Diana probe

By Vanessa Allen 28/07/2007

Henri Paul's family lawyers claim Lord Stevens' probe may have led to the chauffeur being made a "convenient scapegoat" for the 1997 Paris crash - fuelling allegations of a cover up.

They say the ex-Met chief told Mr Paul's parents last November his £3million Operation Paget probe would find that he was not drunk but just four weeks later it said he was three times the French drink-drive limit.

Richard Keen QC, for Mr Paul's parents, said at a preliminary inquest hearing at the High Court: "The gross discrepancies require an explanation." Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed to question Lord Stevens and said he was "a possible witness".

He told Mr Keen: "I take your point about the discrepancy. We are not going to sweep this under the carpet. It will be dealt with."

Mr Keen also revealed a key Operation Paget expert now believed tests on Mr Paul's body, which provided evidence he was an alcoholic, were "biologically inexplicable".

And he claimed an initial search of the driver's flat had found only a bottle of champagne and a bottle of Martini, not the "veritable drinking den" which mysteriously appeared during a search six days later.

The hearing was told Prince William and his brother Harry had raised concerns in a letter about the length of the inquest, expected to last up to six months, and the issues it would address.

They have previously asked that the hearing into the deaths of their mother and her lover Dodi Fayed, 42, should be "open, fair and transparent... and move swiftly to a conclusion".

The much-delayed hearing is due to start on October 2, more than 10 years after the couple and Mr Paul died when their Mercedes crashed.

Lord Justice Scott Baker outlined 20 issues he said the inquest was "likely" to consider, including whether Diana and Dodi were engaged and whether she was pregnant with his child.

Dodi's father, Harrods owner Mohamed al Fayed, has claimed that the couple were deliberately killed on the orders of a conspiracy led by members of the Royal Family.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories ... -19533423/

Yesterday’s hearing was told that further doubts had emerged about the reliability of  test results on blood samples that were used to support the case that Mr Paul was drunk and high.

Independent experts have always asserted the tests could not have been correct because they showed Mr Paul had so much carbon monoxide in his blood he would have been unable to walk.

When the Paget report was published in December, Lord Stevens, helped by expert witness Professor Robert Forrest, a forensic toxicologist, tried to demolish those objections.

He said his team had identified an explanation for the unfeasibly high reading – a misunderstanding over which part of the body the blood samples had been taken from.

But yesterday it was said  that Prof Forrest now agreed with eminent toxicologist Professor Peter Vanessis that there was no plausible explanation for the high reading.

The court also heard that the forensic experts called together for the inquest now agreed that  a test used to support claims that Mr Paul was a chronic alcoholic could not be relied upon.

Richard Keen QC said the blood samples taken to screen for alcohol had been proved to be unsuitable for that task.

To bolster his assertion that the French authorities had used Mr Paul as a scapegoat, he revealed further evidence suggesting that the chauffeur had been framed in a cover-up.

He told the hearing that on September 9, 1997 – 10 days after the crash – a French police search of Mr Paul’s flat found tables covered with bottles of drink. The “veritable drinking den” containing large quantities of booze, including half-opened bottles of vodka and Martini.

This had been used to support the swift French conclusion that Mr Paul was a heavy drinker who had a problem.

But Mr Keen said a similar search of the same flat six days earlier, on September 3, had found just one bottle of champagne and a bottle of Martini.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/148 ... lice-chief


Now if you go back to the beginning of the thread you will see the "Dodi Real Target" meme was being floated in November 2006. On another thread you will see that Stevens was saying there will be some "real surprises" from his investigation, and that Al Fayed was excited by what he had been told by Stevens. That was immediately after the death of Lord Mishcon, of course, so the old man could no longer call out Stevens the liar.

So it seems to me that last November the Establishment were willing to concede some sort of foul play, rather than an accident, so long as that foul play could not be tied back to the Windsor family and Charles's need to marry, and thereby make a queen.

But then they chickened out, as I said at the time (see earlier on this thread).

And now they can explain why Stevens changed his song.


You will also note that Paul Burrell has been flushed down the memory hole, along with Lord Mishcon.

So why does Al Fayed insist on calling the Queen (which he knows to be impossible under British law) rather than Paul Burrell, if he wants it on the record?

And why does Mansfield limit himself to this impossibility, and leave Henri Paul's counsel to make all the running?

He's gone over to the other side, has he not?

[antiaristo]

I'm sure everyone out there can see what that last post means.

But if you spent any time this weekend looking for a response in the mainstream you'd have been disappointed.

The silence is deafening. There is no public consciousness, hardly any public record.

So I'll spell it out...for the record.

It means that the driver, Henri Paul, WAS NOT DRUNK.

WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD FOR TEN YEARS, MOST RECENTLY BY LORD STEVENS, IS ALL LIES.

It means that there was a CONSPIRACY to make it APPEAR he was drunk.

It means that the French authorities PLANTED FALSE EVIDENCE.
Not once, but TWICE.

They planted the fake blood sample, and they planted the booze in his apartment.

It means that SOMEONE in France was doing the British bidding, to make supporting facts fit with the cover story.

The cover story as adopted by EVERY BRITISH NEWSPAPER on the day afterwards. Drunk driver.

Right at the outset. As they would four years later develop the 9/11 explanatory meme: Nineteen Arab hijackers.


The Royal Coroner took illegal possession of her body right at the beginning, and used that control to deter any investigation that might challenge the "drunk driver" cover story.


It means they have maintained that lie from September 1997 right up until the end of July 2007.

And on the last Friday in July, they finally dumped the truth on the street, and took off for their vacations.

Job well done.

And a collective yawn from the "quality" press.



It means they had wanted to get the truth out last November, when Chirac was still in power, along with the "Dodi real target" replacement cover story. Strike "drunk driver", insert "Dodi (not Diana) the target".

Stevens told the driver's parents on 8/9 November; he told al Fayed something similar; he had hinted at "surprises" from the investigation.

But from November to December something changed.

They chickened out in December when Stevens reverted to blaming the "drunk" Henri Paul.

This thread begins towards the end of November 2006. You can actually trace developments as they happened. And come to your own conclusions about why they happened.

Do you not all remember the televised press conference in December, covered throughout the world, at which the Paget conclusions were presented in person by Lord Stevens of Lilliput? That it was just an accident caused by a drunk driver? Even though Stevens knew in November that the "drunk" evidence was worthless?

How could he do that? What possible innocent explanation can be put forward?

Jeff gave us his blog post
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/12/marr ... l#comments


IT WAS ALL AN ENORMOUS LIE.

AND IT IS THE JOB OF THIS CORONER LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER, THIS LATEST ESTABLISHMENT FIXER,
TO GLIDE THE INQUEST RIGHT ON PAST THE STEAMING PILE ON THE SIDEWALK.

HE'S GOT TWENTY IMPORTANT THINGS TO INVESTIGATE, LIKE WHETHER OR NOT DODI BOUGHT DIANA A RING.


I would imagine that there must be alarm bells going off throughout the chancelleries of the world for what this tells us about the European permanent members of the UN Security Council, about their courts and police, and about their commitment to the rule of law.

For this is no mere fraud, not just another moneymaking scam.

THIS WAS MURDER FOR DYNASTIC PURPOSES, BY THE MOST POWERFUL DYNASTY IN THE WORLD.

And those people decide matters of war and peace for the rest of the world.


Certainly the Windsors must be just a little nervous to have played the "William and Harry are suffering" card yet again.

Perhaps the Coroner needs to be notified formally of the enormous multi-million pound bribe just paid by Prince Charles to Prince William.


Added on edit

Wednesday, 13th June 2007 14:09

Diana's sons still dwell on her death

NEW YORK (AP) - The sons of England's Princess Diana said in a television interview that they still think about their mother's death all the time.

This August will mark the 10th anniversary of Diana's fatal car crash inside a Paris traffic tunnel.

In an interview to be broadcast Monday on NBC, Princes William and Harry told 'Today' show co-host Matt Lauer that their grieving process has been a long one, bereft of 'peace and quiet' because of nonstop media attention.

'There's not a day goes by I don't think, you know, that I don't think about it once in the day,' said Prince William.

Time also hasn't stopped Diana's sons from wondering -- like much of the public -- whether her death could have been avoided.

'When people think about it, they think about her death. They think about, you know, how wrong it was. They think about, you know, whatever happened,' Harry said.

He continued: 'You know, no one will ever know. And I'm sure people will always think about that the whole time.'

'Have you stopped wondering?' Lauer asked.

'I'll never stop wondering about that,' Harry said.

In the interview, the princes say they still hope to have lives that are 'as normal as possible,' aside from their royal responsibilities.

NBC plans to broadcast parts of the interview on both the 'Today' show and 'Dateline NBC.'

NBC is a unit of General Electric Co.

[antiaristo]

Lord Justice Scott Baker

Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London

Pre-inquest hearing

Court 73, Royal Courts of Justice

27 July 2007

List of Likely Issues

Whether driver error on the part of Henri Paul caused or contributed to the cause of the collision

Whether Henri Paul’s ability to drive was impaired through drink or drugs

Whether a Fiat Uno or any other vehicle caused or contributed to the collision

Whether the actions of the Paparazzi caused or contributed to the cause of the collision

Whether the road/tunnel layout and construction were inherently dangerous and if so whether this contributed to the collision

Whether any bright/flashing lights contributed to or caused the collision and, if so, their source

Whose decision it was that the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed should leave from the rear entrance to the Ritz and that Henri Paul should drive the vehicle

Henri Paul’s movements between 7 and 10 pm on 30 August 1997

The explanation for the money in Henri Paul’s possession on 30 August 1997 and in his bank account

Whether Andanson was in Paris on the night of the collision

Whether the Princess of Wales’ life would have been saved if she had reached hospital sooner or if her medical treatment had been different

Whether the Princess of Wales was pregnant

Whether the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were about to announce their engagement

Whether and, if so in what circumstances, the Princess of Wales feared for her life

The circumstances relating to the purchase of the ring

The circumstances in which the Princess of Wales’ body was embalmed

Whether the evidence of Tomlinson throws any light on the collision

Whether the British or any other security services had any involvement in the collision

Whether there was anything sinister about (i) the Cherruault burglary or (ii) the disturbance at the Big Pictures agency

Whether correspondence belonging to the Princess of Wales (including some from Prince Philip) has disappeared, and if so the circumstances

http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/d ... 072007.htm



Whether the evidence of Tomlinson throws any light on the collision


I count that as a victory.

You'll remember earlier on this thread that Lady Butler Sloss and Lord Goldsmith were making preparations to submit Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates in order to exclude the "evidence of Tomlinson" from the inquest.

Seems they've chickened out of that one as well.

Sometimes all you have to do is to shine a torch...

[antiaristo]

Leave aside the "told you so" about Paul Burrell.

Is this not some sort of pagan ritual?

Ten years to the day after the act, she is alone once more.

Those who loved her in life are excluded in death.

Her enemy (her own word) is triumphant, united and prominent in the front row.

All legitimacy founded on the attitude of William and Harry.

Come not to praise their mother, but to bury her...forever.

http://tinyurl.com/3d7pou
(Daily Mail)

Paul Burrell barred from Diana memorial service

Last updated at 14:28pm on 7th August 2007
Comments (9)

Key members of Princess Diana's inner circle have been excluded from her memorial service.

The service on 31 August marks the 10th anniversary of her death. But "Team Diana", her closest aides at the height of her fame, will not attend - while Camilla will.

Diana's private secretary Patrick Jephson, her Scotland Yard bodyguard Ken Wharfe, butler Paul Burrell and Victoria Mendham, her personal assistant for eight years, have not been invited.

A source who was close to Diana said: "A memorial service is supposed to be for those who knew and loved the Princess to remember her."

Another element of controversy surrounding the service is the Duchess of Cornwall. She is furious with courtiers for failing to protect her from public scorn over her decision to attend.
One senior figure told the Evening Standard: "It is fair to say the Duchess feels totally let down by courtiers and believes the whole thing should have been resolved by them months ago.

"She knew there was going to be a public backlash, so why didn't they? None of this is Camilla's fault. She is acutely aware that her attendance will be perceived as hypocritical.

"While she wants to publicly support the Prince of Wales, and always will, she believes she has been placed in an invidious position".

But despite her misgivings, the Duchess has decided she will go with Charles to the Guards Chapel at Wellington Barracks in Birdcage Walk - where she married Andrew Parker Bowles - and the Queen's Household has been informed.

Charles and Camilla plan to fly from Scotland on the eve of the service to join the Queen, Prince Philip, William and Harry. All will sit in the front row.

Scroll down for more ...

But look at the speed of the re-write...
And the byline

Princes punish Diana's betrayers by barring them from memorial service

By REBECCA ENGLISH - More by this author »
Last updated at 19:32pm on 7th August 2007
Comments (9)

Princes William and Harry have blocked several former aides they accuse of exploiting their mother's name from her memorial service later this month.

The young royals have pointedly left key members of her household such as her former private secretary Patrick Jephson, her Scotland Yard bodyguard Ken Wharfe and her self-styled "rock" Paul Burrell off the guest list as a sign of their displeasure.

Although all three men were trusted members of Diana's inner circle during some of the most troubled years of her life, the princes have openly expressed their disgust at the way in which they have "cashed in" on her memory since her death ten years ago.

Mr Jephson, the princess's most senior aide for eight years and her first private secretary, was criticised publicly by William for writing his less than complimentary memoirs as was Mr Wharfe, who guarded her until 1993. Both have since forged lucrative careers as royal pundits.

Their vitriol has, however, been largely reserved from Mr Burrell whom they openly accused of a "cold and overt betrayal" for his warts and all accounts of life with their mother.

Now the Princes have made clear that they do not want anyone associated with the still thriving Diana 'industry' present when they commemorate the 10th anniversary of her death on August 31.

Another notable exception is Victoria Mendham who worked as Diana's personal assistant for eight years before the pair fell out over the cost of a Caribbean holiday.
Some 700 guests have been invited to the ceremony, which will take place in the Guards Chapel at London's Wellington Barracks.

Scroll down for more ...

All this interpretation. Yet not a single word emanates from a Royal Mouth.

Somehow I think Burrell and his family will be staying permanently in the United States...

Paul Burrell was more of a father to William. If you give a boy his first pornography, you must be willing to answer his questions. William had to be taught that the working class can never be trusted, and must be turned against Paul Burrell, guilty or no.

And she had plenty of other good reasons besides the “rape tape”. Not least the forthcoming inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales. I see Regina has already fixed the judge (brought in a ringer) and jury (drawn exclusively from Palace servants). But there was no way that she could avoid taking evidence from “Diana’s Rock”. Unless he were eliminated. Of note here is that the Burrells appear to be taking up a new life in a foreign jurisdiction and I wish them life and peace. As with Crawfie, the character assassination runs rife in old Blighty.

John Cleary to Sir Michael Peat 16 November 2002

[zuestorz]

Anti will Mr Rhys Jones be appearing at the inquest?

There has been enough time elapsed for this surviving eye-witness to have recovered from his injuries and to have perhaps recovered his memory of the night in question, surely. Yet in the lamentable coverage of this dreadful event it appears that the British media are content to allow Mr Rhys Jones to remain a silent witness.

Given his potential to clarify some of the issues, to me, it appears as if there is a concerted effort to forget that this survivor ever existed. I suppose the laughable conclusion that he, and the the other passengers, voluntarily consigned themselves into the care of an apparently paralytic driver utterly depends for its continued acceptance as fact upon a gullible public and the silence of Mr Rhys Jones.

But even if he remains silent, are we seriously expected to believe that Dodi and Diana willingly allowed themselves to be driven by a man who was that drunk?

[antiaristo]

Anti will Mr Rhys Jones be appearing at the inquest?

There has been enough time elapsed for this surviving eye-witness to have recovered from his injuries and to have perhaps recovered his memory of the night in question, surely. Yet in the lamentable coverage of this dreadful event it appears that the British media are content to allow Mr Rhys Jones to remain a silent witness.

Given his potential to clarify some of the issues, to me, it appears as if there is a concerted effort to forget that this survivor ever existed. I suppose the laughable conclusion that he, and the the other passengers, voluntarily consigned themselves into the care of an apparently paralytic driver utterly depends for its continued acceptance as fact upon a gullible public and the silence of Mr Rhys Jones.

But even if he remains silent, are we seriously expected to believe that Dodi and Diana willingly allowed themselves to be driven by a man who was that drunk?

EXCELLENT point z! And Very timely.
You've got me going, and there's a rich seam to be mined.

Lets start with the interesting (non-padding) bits from wiki:

Trevor Rees-Jones (also known as Trevor Rees; born 1968) is the former bodyguard for Dodi Al-Fayed and was badly injured in the car accident that killed his charge; Diana, Princess of Wales; and chauffeur Henri Paul. Because he suffered a head injury in the crash, Rees-Jones does not recall particulars of the accident. He allegedly survived because he put on the seatbelt.[1] However, a December 2006 Operation Paget technical examination said that none of the occupants of the car were wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision.

Rees-Jones suffered serious head injuries in the crash. His face was literally flattened: numerous bones were broken or crushed. His face was reconstructed from family photographs by a world-class maxillofacial surgeon, Luc Chikhani, using about 150 pieces of titanium to hold the bones together and recreate the original shape. Within a year, his face was nearly back to normal. Some, but not all, of the expenses of the surgery and hospital care were borne by Mohamed al-Fayed, Rees-Jones's employer at the time of the crash.

Rees-Jones wrote a book (ISBN 0-446-61004-6) about his experiences, with the help of a ghost-writer, Moira Johnston. The book was reconstructed from Rees-Jones' partial memories and those of his family and friends.... Following the end of his marriage to Sue Jones, Rees-Jones subsequently reverted to using Rees as his surname, under which name he is described in the papers relating to inquest proceedings into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Rees-Jones

What sense does this convey? I say it is at pains to stress how badly he was injured, and how far-reaching was the recovery process.
But this is what was said seven years ago

VAN SUSTEREN: You're an active man. You play rugby. You were in the army. Are there any sort of residual effects from the accident?

REES-JONES: There's a couple. My back stiffens up every now and again. I had three operations of my left wrist. So, that, you know, is not a hundred percent. And I've still got some numbness around the left-hand side of my face, but nothing that's worthy of any complaint at all.

Next, there is this business of the seat belt.
This is what was said AT THE BEGINNING.

Bodyguard put on seat belt just before Diana car crash

September 21, 1997
Web posted at: 11:51 a.m. EDT (1551 GMT)

LONDON (CNN) -- The bodyguard who survived the crash that killed Princess Diana and two others strapped on his seat belt moments before the accident, French investigators said.

A study of pictures taken by photographers during the course of the night showed that Trevor Rees-Jones did not wear seat belts when the Mercedes left the Paris Ritz hotel on the night in question. But later pictures showed Rees-Jones wearing the belts shortly before the August 31 crash, which also killed Diana's companion Dodi Fayed and the driver of the car.

Police believe the last-minute action saved his life. None of the other occupants of the car were wearing seat belts.

Investigators said the evidence suggested that the bodyguard realized there was serious danger of an accident, either because of the speed of the car or because of the proximity of other vehicles.

Rees-Jones, who suffered severe injuries, was interviewed last Friday by investigators at the hospital but said he remembered nothing. The last thing he recalled was getting into the limousine around midnight.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/21/di ... stigation/


So here we have ANOTHER LIE by the French authorities. More interference with the evidence.

That's number three.

I wonder. What will President Sarkozy have to say about this?

That quote above came from an interesting interview on Larry King live aired in March 2000.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP ... kl.00.html

Here are a few other revealing pieces

VAN SUSTEREN: About what time did you arrive in Paris?

REES-JONES: I can't remember exact times. It's a long time ago, but I know that when we arrived there, that -- looking outside, the photographers were waiting for us to arrive. So obviously, they had been tipped off by someone -- who I don't know -- about our arrival.
....snip....

VAN SUSTEREN: How do you know that Princess Diana was more concerned with it later in the day?

REES-JONES: It was -- it was obvious that when we entered the Ritz that evening that it got to her. You could tell. And Kez -- I had noticed that when the couple went upstairs for their meal that she had been crying. So it was obviously, you know, the attentions had got to her.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is that the first time you'd ever seen the princess cry?

REES-JONES: First time. I didn't personally witness it, but the first time that I'd known on that trip anything like that, yes.
....snip....

VAN SUSTEREN: About what time did you leave the hotel that night?

REES-JONES: Again, I'm not certain of timings. I'm not going to put my name (ph) against timings. I know it was later on, perhaps midnight, maybe a bit later.
....snip....

REES-JONES: My memory stops after we waited at the rear of the Ritz, getting into the vehicle, and then as the vehicle pulls away, I notice that there was a small, light-colored hatchback vehicle, and a couple of motorbikes or scooters with photographers on them followed us. and that's where my memory stops. I don't remember anything about the journey or anything late -- until 12 days later in the hospital.
....snip...

REES-JONES: I can't believe it to be honest. Anytime I look at the vehicle, it amazes me how anyone got out of there alive, especially myself who was sitting in the front seat. So I was just amazed at how lucky I was.
....snip....

VAN SUSTEREN: Now you write in your book, "The Bodyguard's Story," that Diana made some statements, was talking at the scene.

REES-JONES: I had -- I was absolutely desperate to remember that gap of the journey that I couldn't remember. This was in the first six or eight months of my recovery, you know, desperate to remember for the investigation, for Mr. Fayed, who was my boss at the time, and also for myself. It had been reported in the papers extensively that what I had up here, the great unknown, would scratch any rumors or any theories of what had actually happened. So I was desperate to remember, and I had various recurring dreams of all the things I thought were memories. One of those being I heard a voice calling Dodi from within the vehicle, in other words, trying to fight someone off from within the vehicle. I don't accept these as true memories now. I think it's because I was so desperate to remember that things I had read or things I had seen were affecting that.
....snip....

>I don't get that last paragraph at all. Do you?

>And he's not going to give out ANYTHING that can be cross-referenced, is he?


Again, I'm not certain of timings. I'm not going to put my name (ph) against timings

>He was in the FRONT SEAT, wore no seatbelt, and is back playing rugby two-and-a-half years later.

>Oh! And it's ALL the paparazzi's fault.



Just to round off, we're going to hear lots of hints about how she was a whore, a paranoid, and exploitative and lots of other nasty things. That's ALL revisionism. This is what her bodyguard had to say, before saying such things became prejudicial to one's health.

VAN SUSTEREN: Kez, is there anything that, you know, when you think back to the short time that you knew Diana, is there anything that sort of stands out in your memory about her?

WINGFIELD: Just the fact that she was quite genuine, really and...

VAN SUSTEREN: Did she know your name?

WINGFIELD: Yes, of course, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: How often did you talk to her?

WINGFIELD: Every day.

VAN SUSTEREN: And what kind of conversations would you have?

WINGFIELD: Just normal everyday conversations, nothing highbrow...

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you have -- what kind of normal conversations one has with a princess? I have no idea.

WINGFIELD: I'm not willing to disclose any details of that, but just mundane things, sometimes -- she did have a very good sense of humor, and that made it easy to work for her because she put you immediately at your ease.

VAN SUSTEREN: Trevor, she had her two young sons with her on the boat for awhile. Did you -- how did she interact with her sons?

REES-JONES: Oh, very good. They were all very warm people, you know. And I think the memory I would like to take away if there is one, it's not any specific memory of what was said or what happened. But one of the trips on the first holiday we took to fairground on our way back from a restaurant that -- I'd like to think that we did the job well enough that both the Fayed family and the prince and the princess -- the princes and the princess could enjoy themselves in a normal way in a fairground. That we worked hard enough to enable that. And that's a memory I'll take away.

VAN SUSTEREN: She wrote you a note, didn't she?

REES-JONES: She wrote all of us. Everyone who was on that first holiday received a printed letter and -- signed by the princess and the princes. And I think lots of -- the majority of the letters had a personal comment on the bottom.

VAN SUSTEREN: And when she -- did she know your name?

REES-JONES: You know, amazingly, she'd probably met that many people, but it was -- she'd always know your name, only after being introduced once. And it was always first-name terms from there on. And I think it was a great skill that was had.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. We take another break. We'll be right back, stay with us.

[zuestorz]

You're a mine of info on this Anti, thanks for the interview transcripts.

>He was in the FRONT SEAT, wore no seatbelt, and is back playing rugby two-and-a-half years later.

>Oh! And it's ALL the paparazzi's fault.

He sounds to have recovered completely, in fact remarkably well. I have suspicions however that his memory will never recover. I hope it does but I wonder if there is anything that can compel him to testify? Perhaps pure civic mindedness. The desire to dispel once and for all the rumours and falsehoods. And if his memory is still a blank I wonder if he can be convinced to undergo regression therapy to unlock those memories?

[sunny]

I don't have time to go over the Diana material right now, but I just saw a cwazy movie on Lifetime (Television for Women ) I watched it because it followed a showing of Diana's entire interview with Martin Bashir.

This movie was something else! It contained all the well known points of conspiracy such as strobe gun, Diana pregnant, white Fiat Uno, death of Uno driver (Adanson?) long loooong ambulance ride to the hospital and so on.

It was rather a pot boiler and badly acted, but a pretty good procedural. The movie is based on the book The Murder of Princess Diana-
http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Princess-D ... 0786007001 by Noel Botham. I have never read the book and do not know how closely the movie followed it, but I have a couple of questions regarding some of the factual points of the film for all of you more knowledgable folks.

First of all, was there a Paris police officer who was "suicided" in the days immediately following Diana's death? This officer was supposedly working with an American journalist who came upon the accident while riding with the paps. She knew the paps were too far behind the car to have caused the accident and convinced the officer to look into things after authorities refused to listen to her eyewitness testimony.(they even took her notes of other witness statements at the scene) The officer developes a contact with someone who monitors CCTV surveillance, who agrees to provide him with tapes of the time in question, even tho higher ups have told him the cameras were inoperable at the time. He ends up dead. The American journalist winds up having an "accident" in the tunnel because of a strobe gun weilding motorcycle driving bad guy. She doesn't die, but while in hospital, a mysterious Security Services type warns her to leave it alone. Sounds pretty incredible heh? Any of it true?

[zuestorz]

. . . but I just saw a cwazy movie on Lifetime (Television for Women ) . . .

You're funny.

Not living in Britain or France I don't get much of the media coverage so I can't answer the questions you've asked. But I did recently catch part of a documentary about the curse of Diana's dresses which was strange.

The other tidbit I've read about somewhere recently was that the French fireman who first found Adanson's body in a burned out vehicle on military land has claimed that the victim had sustained gunshot wounds to the head. Although this may not be news.

Frankly though (FWIW) I can't find myself in agreement with the topic of this thread. Not sure that Dodi was anything other than an incidental target.

[sunny]

zuestorz wrote:
You're funny.

hee hee, I was kind of embarrassed to admit to watching Lifetime, which is wall to wall melodrama and modern day bodice rippers for the most part. But this movie was really stunning. Coupled with the Diana/Bashir interview, I think some female executive over there is trying to make a point.

Another interesting piece of the movie I forgot to mention: A witness named Nathalie Brocker is interviewed by the police officer and a few hours later, the American journalist goes looking for her to clarify her statements-she is gone, completely cleared out of her apartment. Her neighbor says "strange men" came in and moved everything. Any truth in this detail? (remember, the whole thing takes place in the first few days after murder)

Here is a link to a (typically dismissive) review in Variety:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934 ... =1264&cs=1

[antiaristo]

.

She can't do it.

Camilla to miss Diana memorial service


Audrey Gillan
Monday August 27, 2007
The Guardian

The Duchess of Cornwall has decided she can no longer attend a memorial service to mark the 10th anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Clarence House announced yesterday.
Camilla had been invited to the ceremony at the Guards' Chapel in Wellington Barracks in London next Friday by Princes William and Harry but following a public outcry over her agreement to go, she changed her mind. Campaigners argued that it was inappropriate for the woman blamed by the Princess of Wales for the destruction of her marriage to attend a service in her memory. Protesters threatened to pelt her with eggs if she turned up to take her front-row seat.


Article continues

Camilla had a long affair with the Prince of Wales while he was married to Diana. In an interview with Panorama, the Princess of Wales said: "There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded."
In a statement explaining her decision to pull out, Camilla said: "I'm very touched to have been invited by Prince William and Prince Harry to attend the thanksgiving service for their mother Diana, Princess of Wales. I accepted and wanted to support them, however, on reflection I believe my attendance could divert attention from the purpose of the occasion which is to focus on the life and service of Diana. I'm grateful to my husband, William and Harry for supporting my decision."

The Duchess is understood to have been troubled by the situation and, having talked it over with Charles, the princes and her family, decided it would be better not to attend. An aide said: "It was never going to be an easy decision either way."

In an ICM poll, more than half of people surveyed believed that the duchess should not attend the official commemoration.

Camilla was due to be at Charles's side as they joined the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, other members of the Royal Family and Diana's own relatives, the Spencers, for the poignant memorial.

Camilla married her first husband Andrew Parker Bowles at the Guards' Chapel in 1973 when she was 26. She married Prince Charles in April 2005, at the Guildhall in Windsor, becoming HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, though technically she also became the Princess of Wales. Charles and Diana separated in 1993 and Camilla and Andrew filed for divorce in 1994.

It is understood that many of the Princess of Wales's closest friends and confidantes have not been invited to the service. Special prayers, composed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the request of William and Harry, will be delivered and the princess's favourite hymn, I Vow to Thee My Country will be sung.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 71,00.html

[slimmouse]

.

She can't do it.

Camilla to miss Diana memorial service


Audrey Gillan
Monday August 27, 2007
The Guardian

The Duchess of Cornwall has decided she can no longer attend a memorial service to mark the 10th anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Clarence House announced yesterday.
Camilla had been invited to the ceremony at the Guards' Chapel in Wellington Barracks in London next Friday by Princes William and Harry but following a public outcry over her agreement to go, she changed her mind. Campaigners argued that it was inappropriate for the woman blamed by the Princess of Wales for the destruction of her marriage to attend a service in her memory. Protesters threatened to pelt her with eggs if she turned up to take her front-row seat.


Article continues

Camilla had a long affair with the Prince of Wales while he was married to Diana. In an interview with Panorama, the Princess of Wales said: "There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded."
In a statement explaining her decision to pull out, Camilla said: "I'm very touched to have been invited by Prince William and Prince Harry to attend the thanksgiving service for their mother Diana, Princess of Wales. I accepted and wanted to support them, however, on reflection I believe my attendance could divert attention from the purpose of the occasion which is to focus on the life and service of Diana. I'm grateful to my husband, William and Harry for supporting my decision."

The Duchess is understood to have been troubled by the situation and, having talked it over with Charles, the princes and her family, decided it would be better not to attend. An aide said: "It was never going to be an easy decision either way."

In an ICM poll, more than half of people surveyed believed that the duchess should not attend the official commemoration.

Camilla was due to be at Charles's side as they joined the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, other members of the Royal Family and Diana's own relatives, the Spencers, for the poignant memorial.

Camilla married her first husband Andrew Parker Bowles at the Guards' Chapel in 1973 when she was 26. She married Prince Charles in April 2005, at the Guildhall in Windsor, becoming HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, though technically she also became the Princess of Wales. Charles and Diana separated in 1993 and Camilla and Andrew filed for divorce in 1994.

It is understood that many of the Princess of Wales's closest friends and confidantes have not been invited to the service. Special prayers, composed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the request of William and Harry, will be delivered and the princess's favourite hymn, I Vow to Thee My Country will be sung.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 71,00.html

Diana is the peoples queen - dead or alive.

Amen.

[antiaristo]

.


Heh heh heh.

They're spinning like tops already, viz:

Front page headline

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/d ... ge_id=1766

Camilla pulled out of Diana memorial on Queen's advice

A word from the Queen led to the Duchess of Cornwall's announcement yesterday that she would not be attending the Diana memorial service.

Body of story

Ingrid Seward, editor of Majesty magazine, said: "Camilla probably thought it was her duty to go, but now she's been let off the hook.

"It could have only come from the Queen. It could have only come from the highest.

"She probably said, 'You don't have to do this, Camilla - you really don't have to do this'.

"All eyes would have been on her. We would have been thinking, 'What's Camilla doing? Is she crying? Is she feeling awkward?'

"It would have been awful for her. It was madness to think she should have gone."

These are the associated stories:

Read more...
CHRISTOPHER WILSON: How can our future King be so badly out of touch?

Diana memorial: Courtiers get it wrong again

Living in the shadow of the 'people's princess'

Charles 'hijacks' Diana memorial

Princes fight to save Diana's 'angels'

The homecoming: State funeral planned for Westminster Abbey as her royal status is restored

Sunday. Notice her Tartan?

This is better than a telenovela!