To Whom This May Concern:

I work as a journalist. It took me bout a week or so after the tragic car crash which took the lives of Princess Diana, companion Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul to piece together that we, the public, and apparently the press, were being completely manipulated and lied to about the so-called accident. I’m really only scratching the surface of this truly shocking story, as I don’t have extensive financial resources to devote to investigating this story in any serious depth, which it absolutely demands. There are a tremendous number of very troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by authorities or by the major news media.

Last Sunday’s London Times (Sept. 21) ran a crucial story which has turned things around substantially; it reports that a highly credible witness, a British attorney, clearly saw another vehicle leaving the crash scene at very high speed in an obvious getaway. This dovetails with mounting material evidence from the crash site proving another vehicle (not paparazzi!) impacted the Mercedes in the tunnel and clearly instigated the disaster — at least in part. Officials also said pointedly that they want to know why “bodyguard” Trevor Rees-Jones fastened his seatbelt not long before the crash. The implication is that he knew something was about to happen — something potentially life-threatening. Professional bodyguards almost never wear seatbelts as they must be ready for any eventuality at any time. The man’s background is British military intelligence.

The mass media really need to realize they have been played by some real masters of the art regarding what was definitely an intentional, meticulously planned and executed murder. The press urgently needs to start asking the great number of questions regarding this mysterious fatal car accident.

Please take a few minutes to read the item I’m sending you. It is a certainty beyond any doubt that the crash that ostensibly killed Princess Diana was an intentional murder and the reporting of the events preceding, during and after the tragedy has been thoroughly manipulated by intelligence agencies.

Incredibly, after major news at the beginning of last week (see first paragraph of report) of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony which had caused investigators to completely reevaluate the case, all mention of the latest turn of events seems to have disappeared from the news. Why haven’t the royal Secret Service, British Intelligence, Interpol, Scotland Yard, etc. shown apparently the slightest interest in investigating what is less and less likely to have been an “accident”? Even the merest indication that it might not have been an accident should have triggered massive investigation by those agencies. The fact that there was none is just unbelievable, especially in light of the latest news I mentioned. It might not be stretching things too far to speculate that itself strongly suggests conspiracy and coverup at rather high levels.

There are far too many holes in the official story. The coverup is relying on the unprecedented and quite unbelievable lack of media scrutiny of the events.

It’s just totally outrageous that this wretched murder could be contorted, spin–doctored and finessed into an being accepted as an “accident” by the whole world. That is almost more disturbing than the assassination itself!

No matter what, we can honor Diana’s memory by standing strong against the forces that in all likelihood viciously took Diana’s life. Diana Spencer consciously set out to use her position of great influence to counteract many of the negative and bitter results of such international policies implemented globally by just such forces, and it seems because of that, in addition to several other “reasons”, she was assassinated.

Part 2

Part of the police case against the paparazzi is that once they arrived at the scene of the accident, they (the paparazzi) failed to assist an injured person. Yet nearly all the photographers are claiming they were several hundred yards behind the Mercedes and that they arrived after the first doctor was already on the scene, an off-duty doctor who had been driving by named Frederic Mailliez.

An email communique sent to an Internet discussion group by someone claiming to be of the photographers who was following the Mercedes the night of August 31 says that he has not only fled the crash site but also the country, apparently because after he took several pictures of the wreckage and the victims, a very alive Diana spoke some extremely chilling words to him. Using an acknowledged alias and routing his letter through an intermediary for his protection, Mr. Merceilles declares (mistakes uncorrected), “I am one of photographer who followed Diana and her companion Dodi Al-fayed until their death in a car-crash. (Paris tunnel — 31 august 1997) I was lucky at that time, while the accident took place, I am 60 metres from the spot. When I heard a very loud sound came from the tunnel, I jumped from one of my friend’s bike (who is now detained) to inspect the scene. I could see a hand of someone waving at us to seek some help. With a terrible shock, I found that was the hand of princess.

I could not see her face clearly, as a warm blood streaming all over her face. She still alive and crying painfully. With “discourage feeling”, I forced myself to take some picture of her — (the pictures and negative are with me now and I am not intend to sell it for profit). From the distance, I could see people already gathering to see what was happening there. I do not understand the world, for accusing us (photographers) for Diana and Dodi death. As a matter of fact, It looks like all people of the world pointing at us as we are the greatest criminal of a crime that we did not responsible. I still remember the words came from Diana’s throat before she died. “Help… someone outside plan to kill us”.

A spokesperson for the Fayeds and the Ritz said that although Dodi had been “examined” by a pathologist in Britain before he was buried, this had not been a full postmortem examination, and that no blood samples were taken.

Lawyers for the photographers have questioned such procedures. “The behavior of passengers in the investigation of a car accident is very important,” said one. Another said he would very much like to know how much, if anything, Dodi had drunk that evening and whether he would have been lucid.

Of course absolutely no postmortem of any kind, which could precisely indicate the direct cause of death, was done on the body of Princess Diana.

Paris police have said that after the accident occurred the ambulance took nearly half an hour to get to the scene. Also the police have confirmed that they were escorting the ambulance back to the hospital but then became separated. The ambulance arrived at the hospital much later and the drivers claimed to have lost their way! This was reported on many European radio channels. Why aren’t the identities and records of these so-called ambulance drivers being released?

Witness accounts recorded by TV crews directly after the tragedy stated that there was an initial impact or explosion, then the sound of metal scraping followed by the sound of a very loud crash when the vehicle hit the tunnel structure. These descriptions were edited out of subsequent broadcasts and have not been heard since. What was the initial sound caused by? If a massive crash could somehow be instigated, the time, location, and condition of the armor-plated limousine would assuredly create some delays in any occupants not killed receiving medical attention, which itself could be of a terminal sort administered by specially assigned agents who, while returning to the hospital in the ambulance, inconceivably lose their way!

Has the scenario being presented — of all those photographers riding motorcycles and trying to take pictures of the inside of a car with tinted windows travelling at 120 MPH, at night, in a dim narrow tunnel — been seriously called into question, as it seems it should? Does anyone really believe that one or more of these paparazzi on motorcycles actually attempted to cut off a large automobile at such speeds? (Nonetheless it’s now certain that at least one other vehicle did intentionally impact the Mercedes in the tunnel.) Does it seem the least bit likely that Diana, Dodi and their bodyguard would drive off in a vehicle with a man supposedly so completely inebriated? Why has it been claimed that Mr. Paul sped rapidly away from The Ritz to evade the paparazzi when there was no antagonism or ill will demonstrated before the Mercedes left The Ritz and video footage shows the car leaving at a reasonable speed?

Although earlier reports had the Mercedes going 120 miles per hour, more recent bulletins from Paris say experts estimated the car’s speed at about 75 miles per hour. Why would anyone drive at such a dangerous speed just to get away from photographers? Photographs can’t cause bodily harm. If indeed the vehicle was travelling even the lower speed, it would seem likely Paul and the other occupants of the Mercedes were trying to get away from something considerably more sinister than photographers. With all the initial hue and cry about the paparazzi being a factor in causing the accident, nearly all still photographs and videos shot before, during or after the tragedy have been seized.

In addition to the inexplicable delay in the arrival of the ambulance and emergency personnel, there were reportedly serious difficulties in removing Diana and the other victims from the specially reinforced body of the limousine, which led to an additional delay of nearly an hour. Also, again inexplicably, during this time Diana was left to wait on the roadside while all the other victims were extricated from the wreckage before she was put into an ambulance. How could anyone not question why Diana was not immediately airlifted out on an emergency medical helicopter but was instead unconscionably made to wait and was then driven at a bizarrely slow pace by an ambulance crew who supposedly couldn’t find their way back to the hospital?! And this in a major modern city like Paris? Not bloody likely! (The ambulance however did manage to conveniently ditch their police escort). Diana was very much alive after the crash, and was in fact sitting up, gesticulating and at one point telling the medics to leave her alone; yet we are told that all the most technologically advanced medical resources that our present-day world and her wealth could command were not able to save her. The public should be told precisely how she died, of what specific medical condition and exactly where and at what time her death occurred, as well as who was present. If she in fact died of heart failure, and there was little or no initial emphasis on head wounds in her case, why was the supposed existence of massive head wounds used as the reason Diana did not have an open casket funeral? Also questionable was the fact that instead of being hooked up to state of the art life support equipment at Salpetriere Hospital, Diana was cut open and her heart massaged directly by a physician.

Despite strenuous contortions and permutations of certain investigators attempting to make unwanted facts disappear or to create the desired facts out of thin air in order to promulgate a bogus and fanciful theory regarding the cause of the crash, apparently some members of the Paris police have decided to actually look at the evidence and listen to the witnesses.

An AP bulletin from Paris dated September 17 does indeed indicate that Paris police now believe a second vehicle was in fact involved in the crash, and possibly even a third. It states, French television reported Tuesday that investigators are considering the possibility that another car was involved in the crash. The report on France 2 said red shards of glass, apparently from brake lights, were found at the crash scene – but that the Mercedes’ brake lights were still intact. Perhaps the Paris police force is reluctant to play along in covering up the awful truth about this miserable and sickening political assassination.

Another item datelined Paris, September 17, reads in part as follows (emphasis added): Authorities investigating the crash that killed Princess Diana are examining parts of a second car that were found at the scene of the accident, a police source said today.

Pieces of a tail light and traces of paint that are not used on the Mercedes car that carried Diana were found at the scene and are being tested in a police laboratory, the source said on condition of anonymity Similar traces were also found on the rear-view mirror of the Mercedes, the source said. An AP news item from later the same day stated that Paris police, based upon new evidence, are considering the possibility that even a third vehicle may have been involved.

The London Times report mentioned at the beginning dated Sept. 21 says that there is a highly credible witness who had provided significant and invaluable testimony on this aspect of the events to the Al Fayed lawyers several weeks ago. This testimony was passed on to authorities but was apparently intentionally buried. Thankfully it has now resurfaced. The newspaper quoted Gary Hunter, a British lawyer who was in Paris on Aug. 31 celebrating his wife’s birthday, as saying he saw a small black car fleeing at high speed from the crash that killed Princess Diana. He saw the car from the window of his third-floor hotel room. Witnesses had initially said they saw a small, black hatchback, possibly a Fiat Uno, near the smashed Mercedes. Hunter said he was watching television when he heard an “almighty crash” at 12:25 a.m. From his window he saw people running toward the tunnel and then saw a car turning from the area by the tunnel exit and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon, the street below. “I heard the screeching of tires. I saw a small dark car turning the corner at the top of the road. I would say it was racing at 60-70 mph,” Hunter stated. “My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there. I am confident that the car was getting off the scene…. It looked quite sinister.” (emphasis added.) Hunter said the car could have been a Fiat Uno or a Renault. The Times article also said the lawyers passed the testimony on to investigators, who, incredibly enough, apparently ignored it,.

Certain witnesses interviewed right after the tragedy on CNN said that immediately after the event some people were around the car and that one man in a three piece suit screamed at them in French; that there was ‘liquid on the ground’. Understandably, the witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Of course, if there was someone in the tunnel just moments after the crash, clearing away witnesses, he would almost certainly be part of any assassination operation. It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was injured, but that her life wasn’t threatened, according to the French doctor who treated her for some time at the scene before the ambulance took her to the hospital.

The doctor, who happened by and stopped to help, said she was “moaning, “gesturing in every direction”. Unconscious people do not moan and gesture in every direction. Early interviews with Dr. Frederic Mailliez also have him saying that he saw the Princess thrashing about, and that her condition did not seem desperate.

The presence of this doctor who just happened to be at the crash site when the tragedy occurred could be viewed as questionable; certainly it could have been a coincidence but it may not have been, and we have only his word as to what actions he took which affected Diana’s physical condition. His location gave him an incalculable ability to drastically impact the course of events — especially Diana’s physical wellbeing.

In addition, the Fayed camp claims that at the hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person in England, so obviously she was fairly conscious for quite some time after the crash. The crash occurred at just past midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4 AM. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it implicate someone perhaps?

Part 3

Something is terribly wrong about the death of Princess Diana. The factual evidence presented herein makes it fairly clear that her death was no accident. Diana was killed intentionally.

Diana Spencer was a human being of course, with some of the failings and weaknesses which that connotes. However, by most accounts she was a kind, decent person, who demonstrated genuine empathy with the underprivileged, the infirm, the oppressed and the ignored; those traditionally considered to be of lower social standing than she; also, for what it may be worth Diana was a true blueblood royal of England’s House of Stewart. Diana’s constant and wholehearted support for numerous charitable endeavors worldwide, and her extraordinary enthusiasm, energy and more recently direct political activism in so many causes which sought to improve the lives and circumstances of great numbers of humanity was thoroughly commendable, and clearly came from the heart. These definitely were not things she had to do. Diana seemed determined to use her position for the greater good. The tremendous worldwide outpouring of sadness and grief on the part of the general populace also came from the heart and was unprecedented, except perhaps for that following the Kennedy assassination. The response was certainly an indication of Diana’s formidable and widespread popularity. Perhaps Princess Diana’s potential independent financial power by way of her boyfriend, a wealthy movie producer, was becoming a serious political threat to the status quo. The senior Mr. Fayed had been quite influential in bringing about the downfall of the Conservative government which held power for so long in England This fact would have hardly endeared him (or his son) to certain major British power brokers; in fact they detest Mr. Fayed and many liked Diana hardly a little more.. Diana herself was becoming more and more overtly political in her campaign against the use of land mines and in her visits to promote peace efforts in Bosnia, etc. This was a threat to the stated New World Order objective of a destabilized Russia and a wary, edgy Western bloc (Europe, the U.S. and allies). The Royal Family is a major player in the high-stakes game of position within the New World Order, and international arms sales including land mines provide a substantial portion of their necessary operating capital. Some objectives of the removal of Diana as a significant influence in our world could be: to keep Diana from interfering with the further development and education of her two boys, Princes William and Harry; to derail Diana’s ever-more-effective international peace efforts (Great Britain is a major exporter of land mines); to send a message to and set an example for other members of Royalty, other world political figures and the entire human population; and to prevent a marriage to a member of the Saudi royal family.

The fact that her companion Mr. Al Fayed was “colored” or Semitic in race is probably a one of the lesser reasons. The fact that Diana was of the House of Stewart, Britain’s true and rightful royal family, and not of the House of Windsor, the German (Hessian) royal family which usurped the British throne centuries ago and still holds power, could be somewhat of a factor, as is the issue of who would exert the most influence over the further upbringing of her two children, heirs to the British throne. As well, the Royal Family is rid of someone they unquestionably saw as a troublemaker and a source of significant embarrassment; a thorn in their side and a monkeywrench in the(ir) works. In addition, the mainly Conservative power structure in Britain despised her and her humanitarian and peacemaking agenda and resented having to pay for her security. They and other governments may have had concerns about her increasingly political activities in light of her great popularity, perhaps also concerns about her knowledge of (and willingness to make public) certain information which could prove troublesome to the New (One) World Order, or things of that nature. Dodi Al Fayed had in fact purchased an engagement present for Diana the very day of their deaths, and a public announcement of an engagement would undoubtedly have been imminent. It has been suggested by a U.K. correspondent that this provided a powerful incentive in terms of time for British intelligence to remove Diana immediately. Once the news of her engagement to Dodi was made public, any such accident would certainly be considered much more suspicious. This jewelry was in fact initially reported missing from the wreckage (along with approximately 30,000 francs). It reportedly later turned up and was given to the Spencer family. It may well have been intentionally removed by operatives on the scene, and later replaced when it was realized that the existence of the gift was already too widely known. Even a brief but thorough study into the forces which have a measurable and significant impact upon the course of international policy and the political and social conditions in which the human race exists, will disclose the continued importance of royalty as one of such forces and prompt realization that its ability to influence the course of these events is (still) quite substantial. As a general example of such influence, all contemporary national banks in existence today such as The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank are modeled upon the Bank of England, founded by Britain’s King William III as a private, for-profit institution which loans money at interest to the national government to pay government’s operating costs, thus discreetly enforcing tremendous economic control (at least!) over entire human populations.

The Royal Family is a unquestionably a key element of the George Bush’s so-called New World Order, with a considerable network of supporters firmly entrenched in the United States political system. Certainly both Ronald Reagan and George Bush were unabashedly pro-Monarchy in great number of major foreign policy decisions implemented during their terms.

Most assuredly another ardent supporter is Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes scholar, meaning that he was hand-picked, then groomed and educated at the expense of The Council of Rhodes to one day take his place as a world leader dedicated to bringing about the fundamental objective of the Council — a one-world government. Mr. Clinton, indeed, seemed peculiarly upbeat when making his public statement about Princess Diana’s death; some reports had him smirking during his brief comments. Clinton also didn’t even bother to offered any valid reason at all for his refusal to attend Diana’s funeral. Given that Princess Diana had recently focused considerable energy and attention on the continuing unjustifiable use of land mines and was campaigning vigorously for their global abolishment, the Clinton administration’s current vehement opposition to the recent land mines treaty overwhelmingly approved by 89 nations and widely supported internationally is certainly noteworthy and surprising, even if nothing more than coincidence and bad timing politically for Clinton. Great Britain is one the world’s leading exporters of land mines, Bill! Their production and sale most definitely fill coffers of some of the British Royal Family’s more ardent political supporters.

Following are the four news stories mentioned above regarding the medical condition of bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones. I have emphasized the most important sections and have edited the items slightly for the sake of brevity. In and of themselves these four items indicate deliberate distortion and manipulation of information. This can only be an attempt to suppress the truth, and realistically, that truth could only be that Diana’s death was not a tragic accident but a deliberately and methodically planned and executed political murder. A host of other inconsistencies and highly troubling questions have been raised which the protective and investigative agencies of both countries as well as the mainstream media have almost totally sidestepped. This very fact in itself seems quite suspicious. It should be, indeed it is imperative that the events and circumstances of the tragedy be thoroughly and completely investigated and examined for the slightest indication that it may have been more than a shocking and virtually inexplicable accident! A great number of such indications have just been cited, many of which have been known from the very beginning of the terrible events.

When all is said and done, we have all lost someone special, and it appears clear that once again it was no accident, but a deliberate act intended to deprive the human race of one of it’s brighter luminaries and finer leaders. The late Princess of Wales, Lady Diana Spencer, will be long and deeply missed.

John A. Quinn
all rights reserved

P.O. Box 106
Laytonville, California 95454
(707) 984-7178