For all of my critique concerning Spencer and land mines in the previous entries, it would be arrogant to say Diana’s activities in Angola and Bosnia did not raise legitimate concerns. I thought it interesting that practically all of the individuals pushing the moribund Diana-Clinton link failed miserably to understand that Bill Clinton’s double-dealing and bowing out of the process could have left her vulnerable to the machinations of others. This has led some to speculate that this may have given a green light to get rid of Spencer, so as not to embarrass his administration. This is not entirely idle speculation. DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) documents discussing the problems caused by Diana within NATO were reported in the Guardian (1). Conservatives in the British government were rattling their sabres, that her antics would have certainly caught the eyes of assorted arms dealers, not to mention those interested in exploiting Angola’s mineral wealth. Indeed, the background to this was very well presented in the otherwise awful book Diana: The Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge. In Chapter 18, in the 2005 edition entitled “Loose Cannon” (discussed an instalment or two ago), the authors provided an interesting backdrop to the so called ‘Angolagate’ affair which was essentially an illegal oil for arms exchange between the Mitterand Government of France and the Angolan government embroiled in a bloody long running civil war. As it stands, France, Britain and the US were busy playing off both sides in a brutal standoff related to Angola’s mineral wealth. King and Beveridge break this down very well, as it is a rather complex tale. They do the same for Bosnia with surprising aplomb. Nonetheless, knowing King and Beveridge had very little credibility due to their other musings, I contacted a very credible source of information, [...]
Browsing diana spencer
As Seamus continues draws near to an end on his steady path through the exploration of the Princess Diana death conspiracies, I couldn’t help but take a quick look at the CIA’s own records stashed away in the declassified 25 year vault – a place where sometimes the strangest documents occasionally get declassified and silently stashed away without any fanfare. I was a bit surprised that even as searches like “UFO crash” and “mind control” turn up plenty of declassified documents to sift through (over 1000 in some cases), the search for “Princess Diana” or “Diana Spencer” turn up nothing. Not a single record. This is especially surprising in light of the fact that a 2007 Guardian article announced that “…US authorities have confirmed that the files exist, but maintain they connot be released on the grounds that this would jeapardise national security”. The article was in response to a demand by Harrods tycoon Mohamed al-Fayed that U.S. intelligence agencies release the “wealth of intelligence” on the late Princess Diana – intelligence that many believe could finally solve the enduring mystery behind Diana Spencer’s death.
Unlike other so called researchers, I cannot claim that any speculation on my behalf herein is as good as evidence. I also make no claim that the following article gives a comprehensive run down of all the physical evidence in the Diana case, nor is it particularly up to date. John Morgan’s Cover up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of errors in the Paget Report provides the beginner with a useful look into ongoing problems with the official account and is available online. One may well find his other books on the following aspects of the event more useful and up to date. However, I hasten to add that Morgan’s skills are more or less in his compilation and documentation of witness statements and physical evidence. It’s when he steps outside of this that he encounters troubles (as we will see more in depth in Part XIII). Outside of the capable researchers from the DPF that I have mentioned, far too few people interested in the Diana case have put in the effort required to study legitimate intelligence documents and operations. In the case of Spencer’s car, all it takes is a cursory glance at the infamous CIA manual entitled ‘A Study of Assassination’, from the 1954 coup in Guatemala, to see that staged car accidents are difficult to pull off at the best of times, simply because one cannot be guaranteed a fatality. (1) There is much written about Spencer’s car itself and much noise has been made about possible brake tampering.
The English investigation from which the Paget Report came from effectively began life in mid 2005. Concluding in 2008, it was the longest enquiry in U.K. history (1). Although Martin Gregory claimed that Al Fayed brayed for the investigation and invested millions of pounds to have it happen, the truth is that the Paget Report was actually the result of public outcry over the poorly managed French investigations. The investigation was led by Lord John Arthur Stevens, and while offering a comprehensive outline of the case, not to mention the allegations of conspiracy, it was hardly a comprehensive summary of the case. Individuals, like Princes Phillip and Charles, nor important witnesses in the Alma tunnel and the Ambulance on that night, ever testified. Many critics thus felt that difficult witnesses served as mere lip service for footnotes, or were ignored.
According to Allen’s arch nemesis, Gregory, by 2004, Al Fayed had spent some 5 million pounds on all manner of media and documentaries, discussing his version of Princess Diana’s story. Now, if this number is true, Al Fayed’s outlay in keeping Diana’s legacy alive would be running into the tens of millions today. As we have seen earlier in this series, Al Fayed enjoyed the patronage of influential figures like Max Clifford (before the two had a falling out over comments made about Al Fayed’s inherent lying in his biography), (1) Piers Morgan, and a one Richard Desmond. Desmond, also good friends with Clifford and Morgan, appears to be one of the reasons why Spencer’s death still receives an inordinate amount of print in the tabloids, particularly in the Daily Express and a number of women’s magazines that Desmond owns (OK! Magazine – that international bastion of intellectual discourse) is but one of them. Another powerful, yet largely unseen backer in his crusade has been the LaRouche organisation. These fellows are considered the most militant, affluent, and organised of all the conspiracy theorist groups. Indeed, Lyndon La Rouche himself has boasted about his numerous contacts with all manner of agencies (just before he turned on them). (2) While his organisation did well with Webster Tarpley’s “Unauthorised Biography of George Bush”, they do uncover some interesting things occasionally. However, I advise being careful with organizations like this, and instead finding alternatives with better sources. These people are conspirahypocrites and conspiravangelists of the highest order. (3) Apparently, the Queen is the witting head of an international drug trafficking cartel. Additionally, her cousin, Prince Edward the Duke of Kent, killed Vatican Banker Roberto Calve and Britain’s Lord Reese Mogg, and was behind the Oklahoma bombing. (4)
Apparently, Diana thought that Gianni Versace was important enough to become the victim of a political conspiracy. She also believed that she was being targeted by the same people that went after Versace (1). If it was true that she had those beliefs, then it shows not only a high level of shallowness, but also a paranoia that would socially cripple just about anyone. Yet, as I’ve written in my earlier articles on Diana, the opposite was true. While it is well known that Spencer frequently expressed fears for her security, it is utterly ignored by Diana conspiracy theorists that she also frequently shunned security concerns. In 2004, a video tape containing Diana discussing her affair with Barry Mannakee was unearthed. The tryst occurred in between the period of 1985-87. The tape, made in 1992, revealed Spencer’s suspicions that Mannakee had been murdered in 1987. However, if one reads this link, the story does not make for a convincing murder scenario due to the elaborate nature of the conspiracy required. In reality folks, all they needed to silence him would have been poisoning (2) or a faked suicide attempt (3). Spencer’s one time lothario James Hewitt, received threats that he might end up like Mannakee. However, I struggle with Hewitt. He had a book to sell. Also, as it turns out, all of Spencer’s lovers while she was with Charles were alive and kicking at the time of the Paget report. These facts make the “honour killing” angles rather weak (4).
Keith Allen is an actor, comedian, musician, writer, director and father of singer/songwriter Lily, who crashed the Cannes Film Festival in May of 2011 with his documentary ‘Unlawful Killing’, concerning Princess Diana’s death – specifically, the alleged murder of Diana Spencer and her partner Dodi Fayed. I had always thought of Allen as being a slightly arrogant, belligerent, yet ultimately an intelligent and talented bloke. Indeed, some of his critiques of author Martin Gregory’s claims about the case have made for interesting reading. Thus, I advise viewing his ‘Rebuttal of Martyn Gregory’s Article by Keith Allen and the Unlawful Killing Production Team’ on their Facebook page. In his film, he notes the following areas of suspicion surrounding Princess Diana’s death. 1) The legendary white Fiat Uno that clipped the car. 2) Diana was very much alive when rescue teams arrived. 3) Henri Paul, the driver’s appearance that night. Not drunk, blood tests faked. 4) There being no cameras working in the Alma tunnel that night. 5) The length of time it took Spencer to get to the hospital. 6) The names of the ambulance staff are still unknown. 7) While not a ‘note’ as such, Allen was inconclusive as to the motives of the crime, i.e. was it a ‘scare’ operation that simply went wrong? It is a balanced take, not often seen in the Diana field. Thus, if we take an objective point of view, there certainly are some things to discuss either way (if you are interested in the Diana caper). However, it is also one of the hardest films to find anywhere in the world.
To write a long piece on Diana Spencer, contributing to the plethora of literature written about her already, is something that I have resisted doing for an extremely long time. Miss Spencer is the sort of topic most serious researchers avoid, bar the odd discussion every now and again. Part of the problem is that if you are interested in her demise, invariably that meant you had to be interested in her, in some way. I make no apologies for the fact that I never was. Thus, I think this dispassionate treatise will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers. Indeed, my good friend Charles Drago advised me along those lines when he told me, “…what do people care about what you think of Diana, it’s the evidence of the case which is the major issue.” Yet – is it really? The towering figure of Diana herself has greatly overshadowed the evidence in the case. Indeed, exploring the world of celebrity conspiracy is a tough one, because rich and famous people have a habit of dying relatively young. Let’s face it, they have a dazzling array of choices with which to do so. You have suicides, drug overdoses, car accidents, plane crashes, drowning, liver failure, bulimia, crazed fans, rival ‘gangsta’ record labels, painkillers and that old chestnut – autoerotic asphyxiation.