''ESTONIA'' (15) "Hindenburg" (2) “Yom Kippur” War (1) 2017 Westminster attack (1) 20th_Century (3) 7/7 London bombings (38) 911 (389) A.H.M. RAMSAY (2) Abu Ghraib (1) ADL (1) ADOLF_HITLER (22) ADVENTURE (1) Affirmative Action (1) Afghanistan (7) AFRICA (45) African Origins (1) Agriculture (3) AIDS (23) Al Azhar University (1) Alain de Benoist (15) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (33) AMAZONIA (3) America (4) American Islamization (16) American Universities (1) American_Indian (1) ANCIENT_CIVILISATIONS (2) Animal_Rights (6) ANTEDILUVIAN_CIVILISATION (15) Anthony Blunt (1) Anthony Ludovici (3) ANTHROPOLOGY (1) Anti-Semitism (2) Antifa (2) AR. LEESE (4) ARCHAEOLOGY (3) Argentina (1) Armenia (4) Armenian Genocide (1) Art (15) Arthur Koestler (1) Astronomy (30) AUSTRALIA (1) AUSTRIA (1) Ayaan Hirsi Ali (3) BALI (1) Balkans (4) Bangladesh (1) banned_weapons (1) BELGIUM (2) Benjamin Freedman (1) BENJAMIN SOLARI PARRAVICINI (11) Beslan (1) Bill Clinton (1) Biological Warfare (2) BLOOD PASSOVER (12) BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION (14) Book purge (1) Brainwashing (1) Brigitte Gabriel (1) British politics (1) Buddhism (5) California (1) Cambodia (8) CANADA (7) CANCER (40) Carolina bays (1) Celebrities-Show Business (3) Cell Phone towers (6) Censorship in Europe (7) CENTRAL_ASIA (1) Central/South America (1) Ch. Bollyn (30) Charles Tart (8) Charlie Hebdo (1) Che Guevara (2) CHEMTRAILS (13) CHINA (6) Christian Zionism (1) CHRISTIANISM (45) Churchill (6) Circumcision (10) CLIMATE (6) Climate Change (1) cluster bombs/mines (2) COLD_FUSION (1) COLONIALISM (1) Colonization of Europe (19) Commerce (1) Communism (48) CONGO (5) Consciousness (9) Conspiracies (8) Consumerism (1) contemporary society (8) COPTS (1) Cosmogony (1) Crime (5) Criminal_Sciense (1) crop circles (5) CUBA (16) Cultural Marxism (7) DARFUR (3) Dead Sea Scrolls (1) Death penalty in ISLAM (1) Death-Bed Visions (1) DECADANT_ART (1) Deir Yassin (8) DENMARK (2) Depleted uranium (6) DIAMOND CARTELS (1) DIANA (10) DIETRICH ECKART (1) DILUVIUM (5) Disney (2) DOGS (1) Donald TRUMP (3) Dönmeh (1) Doppelgangers (1) Dresden (6) DRUG ADDICTION (1) E.U. (11) Eastern Europe (1) ECHELON (1) ECONOMY (14) EDUCATION (4) Egypt (8) Eisenhower (2) El Inglés (2) Elite_Child_Sex_Rings (16) Elizabeth Taylor (1) ENERGY (8) Enoch Powell (1) environmentalism (3) Ernst Zundel (1) European Parliament (1) EUROPEAN UNION (10) EUROPEAN_IDENTITY (3) Eustace Mullins (10) Evidence for the Afterlife (1) EVOLUTION (5) EXPLORATIONS (1) Ezra Pound (1) FALSE_HISTORY (1) Fascism (3) Female Genital Mutilation (2) FEMINISM (11) FINLAND (1) Fjordman (6) Flight 007 (1) Fluoride (1) Food (8) FRANCE (25) Francis P. Yockey (3) Frankfurt School (1) Franklin D. Roosevelt (5) freedom of speech (1) Fukushima (2) Gaza (1) Geert Wilders (9) genetically modified organisms (GMO) (8) Georges Bensoussan (2) German National Socialism (13) GERMANY (35) Gilad Atzmon (11) Globalism (4) Great Britain (47) Great Pyramid (16) GREECE (2) Guatemala (1) Gulag (3) Gulf War (1) Gulf War Syndrome (1) Guylaine Lanctot (2) HAARP (10) Harry Potter (1) HEALTH (114) HEMP (1) Henry Makow (2) Hidden History (15) HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES (1) Hiroshima (3) Historical Review (63) History_of_IDEAS (1) HMS Hampshire (3) Hollow Earth (22) Hollywood (9) Holocaust (137) HOLODOMOR_1932-33 (17) Homosexuality (4) Horst Mahler (4) Howard Hughes (1) HUMAN_ORIGINS (1) HUMAN_RIGHTS (1) Humorous (2) HUNGARY (2) HYPERBOREA (7) IAN STEVENSON (13) Immigration (15) IMPORTANT (5) INDIA (24) IndoEuropean (9) Indonesia (2) Infrasound Weapons (1) Intellectual_freedom (1) Intelligence (15) International Criminal Tribunal (3) INTERNET (2) INTERRACIAL_RELATIONS (1) INTIMIDATION (2) INVENTIONS (3) IRAN (9) IRAQ (21) IRAQ_war (10) IRELAND (1) ISLAM (305) Islam in Europe/America (76) ISLAM in RUSSIA (1) ISLAM propagandists (4) ISLAMIST INTIMIDATION (21) ISLAMIST_VIOLENCE (13) ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE (46) Islamophobia (4) ISRAEL (124) ISRAEL-ARAB RELATIONS (8) ISRAEL's_ATOMIC_BOMB (4) ISRAEL/EU RELATIONS (1) ITALY (5) J.Kaminski (4) Japan (2) JEWS (105) JEWS/ISRAEL-USA_relations (48) JFK Assassination (27) JFK/RFK (1) Jihad (2) Jo Cox (6) Joe Sobran (4) John Bryant (17) John Lear (3) Journalists (2) Julius Evola (38) Jyllands-Posten newspaper (1) Kafirs (1) Karl Marx (1) Katie King (1) Katyn (11) Kevin MacDonald (37) KHAZARs (1) Knut Hamsun (1) Kurdistan (1) KURDS (1) Lasha Darkmoon (8) Laurel Canyon (4) Layla Anwar (4) LEBANON (3) LEFT (16) Lord Kitchener (4) Lord Northcliff (1) Lost Civilisations (2) Lost Technology (1) LYDDA (1) MADELEINE McCANN (4) Magic (1) Magnesium (7) Mahathir (1) Mahatma Gandhi (4) Malaysia (2) Manipulation (67) MAPS (1) Mark Weber (10) Mass immigration_Multiculturalism (18) Mass_Media (2) Mass-Psychology (3) Massacres (1) METEMPSYCHOSIS (16) MEXICO (1) MH370 (2) MIDDLE EAST (44) Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (10) MIND CONTROL (23) MONEY-Banking (8) Monsanto (9) Mormonism (1) Mortacracy (6) MUSIC MAFIA (2) Muslim Brotherhood (5) Muslim Persecution of Christians (1) MUSLIMS IN EUROPE (60) Mussolini (2) Mysterious (69) Mysterious_SKY (1) Nathuram Godse (3) Native Americans (1) Neapolis (1) NESSIE (17) Netherlands (10) New World Order (4) NEW_ZEALAND (1) NGOs (2) Nicolai Sennels (1) no-go zones (1) NOAM CHOMSKY (4) Nonie Darwish (10) North Africa (3) NORWAY (1) Norway massacre (5) NUCLEAR (11) Nutrition (20) Obama (2) Occult Symbols (21) Oklahoma City bombing (7) OLYMPIC_GAMES (13) OPINION (9) Orel_Yiftachel (5) P. Buchanan (23) PACIFISM (1) PAEDOPHILIA (15) Paganism (2) PALESTINE 1944-1948 (1) Palestinians (17) PARIS (1) Patrice Lumumba (1) PATRICIA HEARST (2) Patton (2) Paul Craig Roberts (1) Paul Weston (9) PEARL HARBOR (1) Persecuted Christians (7) PERSONALITIES (1) Photographic_Archive (1) Photography (2) Physics (9) POLAND (5) POLAR REGIONS (30) Poliomyelitis (8) Political Thought (50) Pollution (3) Polynesia (25) Pope Benedict (1) Pornography (1) PORTUGAL (5) PREHISTORY (28) propaganda (3) Prophecies (12) Psychedelics (64) PSYCHIATRY (10) Psychical Research (122) Psychology (5) QATAR (1) QUEBEC (1) Queen Victoria (1) R.R.Rife (10) Race (119) Racism (2) RED_Alert (4) Religion (23) René Guénon (1) Revilo Oliver (11) Richard Dawkins (1) Rockefellers (1) Roger Garaudy (6) Roman Catholic Church (10) Ron Paul (7) Rudolph Hess (1) Ruling_by_CORRUPTION (14) RUSSIA (8) RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (1) RWANDA (31) S. H. Pearson (1) Sabra-Shatila massacre (10) Sandy Hook (1) Sanskrit (1) SAUDI ARABIA (5) Savitri Devi (27) Scandinavia (1) SCIENCE (42) Secret Military Technology (14) Secret weapons (10) Sedition Trial (1) SERBIA (1) sexual freedom (5) Sexualization of Culture (4) Skepticism (1) Slave trade (1) SOUTH AFRICA (2) Space/Apollo_Hoax (54) SPAIN (2) Spengler (6) Spirituality (1) Srebrenica (1) State_criminality (8) Steganography (16) Steven Yates (7) STRANGE SOUNDS (4) Subterranean_world (10) SUDAN (2) Surveillance (1) SWASTIKA (33) SWEDEN (8) Switzerland (1) SYRIA (8) Taj Mahal (13) Ted Kaczynski (1) Terrorism (27) TESLA (6) The 1001 Club (1) The Celts (1) The Frankfurt School (1) The Great Flood (8) The Nuremberg Trials (4) The plutonium injections (4) Theo van Gogh (1) Thought of the Right (63) TITANIC (72) Tommy Robinson (1) Torture (1) Tradition (5) Transcendent Experience (6) Tunguska (1) Tunisia (2) TURKEY (7) TWA flight 800 (1) U.S.A. (142) U.S.A. ARMY CRIMINALITY (18) U.S.A. Foreign policy (12) U.S.A. Military (2) U.S.A._HISTORY (2) U.S.A._POLITICS (3) U.S.A._SOCIETY (5) U.S.A.-CIA (12) U.S.A.-Power Structure (4) U.S.S. Liberty (7) UFOs (166) Ukraine (15) United Church of Christ (1) United Nations (3) UNKNOWN_EARTH (2) USA (3) USA_Press (2) USA/USSR_relations (2) USS San Francisco (1) USSR (51) Vaccination (1) VATICAN (12) Vatican II (2) VELIKOVSKY (2) Vernon Coleman (14) Voynich_manuscript (15) WAFA SULTAN (1) War Crimes (30) water (2) Wayne MADSEN (2) WEST (10) WEST/ISLAM Relations (20) WESTERN_ELITES (2) White phosphorous (1) WILD_LIFE (1) Wilhelm Reich (4) William Gough (10) wind farms (1) Wm F. Koch (8) Women in Islam (4) World Wildlife Fund (8) WORLD_ORDER (57) WWI (6) WWII (89) WWII Aftermath (36) Younger Dryas Ice Age (4) Yugoslavia (7) ZIONISM (10)

Thursday, July 28, 2011



PRINCESS Diana’s post-mortem samples were switched with those from another woman, an explosive new book claims.

May 10 2011 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/245718

Adding weight to “cover-up” theories, it says samples were swapped prior to toxicological testing.
According to documents uncovered for the book, published this week, the toxicologist at London’s Charing Cross Hospital received the samples of another female and tested them in the belief that they were from Princess Diana.
In his latest volume in a series about the Diana inquest, author John Morgan believes he has discovered the truth of what occurred in the 24 hours following the deaths of the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed in a Paris car crash on August 31, 1997.
“There is a lot of evidence which points to the toxicology testing being carried out on samples that did not come from the body of Princess Diana,” he said last night, pointing out that the documents were, along with others, withheld from the inquest jury.
Mr Morgan said he had uncovered a litany of conflicting evidence, inconsistencies, mis-labelling of body samples, cover-ups, evidence and witnesses who were never called to give evidence at the inquest.
He is now calling for independent DNA tests to be carried out on the body samples. “The samples at Charing Cross Hospital have never been subjected to DNA testing. With so much conflicting evidence, how can we be sure?” he said.
“The evidence I have studied indicates that there are two lots of samples. One belongs to Diana, which is held by the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Paget, and the other lot are samples from another body and held by Charing Cross Hospital.
“Diana’s UK post-mortem samples were switched ahead of the toxicology testing.”
He added: “The jury were not given the post mortem and toxicology reports on Diana. If they had, they should have been able to work out that the toxicology testing was conducted on samples that weren’t Diana’s.
“For example, Diana’s body was embalmed in France, but there was no embalming fluid in the toxicology tested samples.”
He went on: “Diana had consumed alcohol that night in Dodi’s apartment and later at the Ritz Hotel.
It is recorded by the Hammersmith and Fulham mortuary manager that her stomach smelled strongly of alcohol, but there was no alcohol in the samples tested in London.”
Mr Morgan said that within 24 hours of her death, Diana’s body had been subjected to embalming in France and the UK, along with two post mortems.
“I am asking why?” said the Australian-based writer who lives in Brisbane and insisted that documentation shows interference from senior aides on behalf of the Queen.
“Having removed Princess Diana as a member of the Royal Family in 1996, suddenly, Diana became royal again. Only the Queen could have ordered this.
“The Queen took control of events from Balmoral, very early following Diana’s death,” Mr Morgan said, adding that he believed the UK coroner should not have taken possession of Diana’s body after it arrived back in England.
“By law, jurisdiction over the body should have gone to the coroner in Northamptonshire, which covers Diana’s family home, Althorp, where it was known Diana’s body would be buried.”
Another stark example of a switch Mr Morgan claims to have discovered was that there was no vitreous humour (eyeball gel) sample taken during the UK post-mortem, yet a sample was tested by the London toxicologist.
Also, sample labels received by the toxicologist, Susan Paterson, for both blood and liver tests, read differently to the descriptions in the post-mortem documentation. Mr Morgan has spent more than five years investigating the evidence relating to the 1997 Paris crash in the city’s Alma Tunnel.
His series of books is based on the testimony heard during the inquest and evidence in official documents from within the British police investigation that were withheld from the inquest jury.
Leading QC Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest, stated last year: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by him will come to be regarded as the Magnum Opus on the death crash.
Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, has praised Mr Morgan’s work, calling it “heroic” and “impressive works of forensic enquiry and immensely helpful to the cause of truth.”
Mr Al Fayed said: “I believe that John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than the police in France and Britain.”

DIANA-The 18 missing witnesses

Diana: The 18 missing witnesses in £4m inquiry

13/12/06 - By John Twomey UK Daily Express
EIGHTEEN key witnesses have been ignored by the £4million Lord Stevens inquiry into the death of Princess Diana.

Their evidence to French police had raised several questions about the fatal crash in Paris.

But detectives working on the three-year inquiry – which will publish its findings tomorrow – didn’t interview them to gather fresh testimony.

The revelations come after the Daily Express revealed disturbing allegations from a crucial witness in the Diana probe who claimed that British detectives tried to pressure him into changing parts of his evidence.

The claims by jeweller Alberto Repossi – who insists Diana and Dodi were engaged when they died in the crash – have been dismissed by the Operation Paget squad.

Lord Stevens’ inquiry was set up to finally discover the truth behind how Princess Diana’s Mercedes, driven by Henri Paul, came to crash in the Alma tunnel in Paris on August 31, 1997.

Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed has spent the past nine years mounting a determined campaign for the truth, spending millions of pounds uncovering fundamental flaws in the original French inquiry.

He remains convinced that the pair were murdered in a plot organised by the British Establishment, including the intelligence services.

One of the many theories put forward is that the Princess’s car was struck by another vehicle as it entered the tunnel under the River Seine.

And yesterday it emerged that 
one family which gave detailed statements to French police – but not to their British counterparts – told how they saw two large cars heading at speed towards the Pont de L’Alma underpass in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower.

Moments later, the vehicles disappeared into the tunnel and the family heard the screeching of brakes, the “scrunching” of metal, a first sickening impact and a louder bang followed by the haunting sound of a jammed horn.

As the witnesses looked down into the underpass, they saw the wreckage of the Mercedes car which was carrying Diana and Dodi slewed across the carriageway. But there was no sign of the second car.

The family also told how a taxi, following at a normal distance, stopped at the tunnel entrance but no-one got out.

They also recalled seeing a mystery man running straight past them and into the tunnel.
The family, which has declined to be named, was interviewed by Captain Eric Crosnier of the Paris crime squad shortly after the crash. The family says it has given no other interviews.

Lord Stevens will present his findings at a press conference to the world’s media tomorrow.

The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner is understood to have concluded that Diana and Dodi died because their chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk and driving too fast.

Paul was also killed and Dodi’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was seriously injured but survived.

Harrods owner Mr Al Fayed suspects British intelligence officers were involved in “organising” the crash and covering up afterwards.

He fears the deaths were ordered because the Establishment could not bear the thought of the mother of a future king being pregnant with a Muslim’s child.

Last week, his lawyers forced the former senior judge in charge of the inquest to back down over plans to hold preliminary hearings in private. Lady Butler-Sloss said she was persuaded to reverse her decision because of “strong public interest in the case”.

But Mr Al Fayed’s victory has only fuelled suspicions that a cover-up is being attempted.

Statements made by the French family have been 
backed up by another witness, Clifford Gooroovado, 41.

He said: “The Mercedes car was driving behind another car. The car in front of the Mercedes was probably running at normal speed. The consequence was that the Mercedes probably accelerated so hard in order to pull out and overtake this car.”

Grigori Rassinier, who was also near the underpass, said in a statement: “There were a number of cars in the tunnel and it was certainly possible that there was one or more other cars travelling ahead of the Mercedes at the time of the crash.”

Mr Rassinier said he had been contacted by the Operation Paget squad last year and offered to travel to London to give a statement. But he claims he never heard from them again.

Last week, the Daily Express revealed how Monte Carlo-based jeweller Mr Repossi alleged he was put under pressure to change his story during lengthy interviews with officers from Lord Stevens’ squad.

The jeweller claims – backed up by receipts and CCTV footage from his Monaco showroom – that Diana and Dodi picked out a £230,000 emerald and diamond band from a variety of engagement rings in a prestigious range called Dis-Moi Oui – Tell Me Yes.

Dodi later asked for the ring to be sent to the Repossi store at the Place Vendome in Paris, which the jeweller opened especially so he could visit on August 30 – the day before the crash.

The fabulous engagement ring was later left at Dodi’s Paris apartment where he had planned to present it to the princess. Detectives from Lord Stevens’ team interviewed Mr Repossi three times and his wife once.

In the final meeting in July this year, officers told him that the jewellery was not an engagement ring. Mr Repossi said: “They warned me that if anyone lied to Lord Stevens then he had the power to get people sent to prison,” he said.

“They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my reputation and the bad press coverage I would get. But despite all this, I was not prepared to change what I’d said before because it was the truth.”

The inquiry team vehemently denies any attempt to put pressure on any witness to tell anything other than the truth.

Sources close to Lord Stevens’ investigation yesterday suggested that 
the 18 witnesses may not have been spoken to because their original statements were perfectly adequate and there was no need to interview them again.

DIANA-Jacques Morel, key eyewitness

Diana crash witness: I saw a dozen 'shady figures' in tunnel

            Jacques Morel
Jacques Morel claims he saw 'shady figures' before Princess Diana's fatal car crash

A key eyewitness to the car crash that killed Princess Diana has broken his silence to tell how he saw a dozen people at the scene moments before her death.
Record producer Jacques Morel, 59, is convinced they expected to see her Mercedes brought to a halt by another car.
Detectives working on the inquiry into Diana's death, headed by former Scotland Yard chief Lord Stevens, considered his account so important that he was flown to London and interviewed for three days.
Mr Morel, who was driving home with his wife Moufida in Paris on the night of August 31, 1997, said: 

"As we entered the Alma tunnel I looked to my left and saw about a dozen shady figures on a tiny pavement by the side of the opposite carriageway.
"They were all standing in a long line. The sight was unforgettable.
"The pavement is less than 30cm (12in) wide and next to fast traffic. They would have been breathing in petrol fumes and it was very dirty down there. It was certainly not a sensible place to stand around."

If accurate, Mr Morel's recollections are significant because they suggest that the route Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were taking was known in advance.
Until now it has always been thought that chauffeur Henri Paul was following an unexpected route in order to shake off paparazzi photographers.
Mr Morel, who now lives in Tunisia, said: "There was an almighty bang and a great big flash of light. Immediately my wife and I realised there had been a crash.
"My first thought was that those inside the tunnel were connected with what had happened. This thought has never left me.
"We could see a car coming from the opposite direction had gone straight into a pillar. All of the other drivers stopped, so I did too.
"There was a symphony of car horns and then white smoke filled the tunnel. I got out of my car and rushed towards the crash scene.
"I was devastated when I saw the Princess in her white trousers in the back of the car. She was easily recognisable.
"She looked so serene and peaceful, but it was the end. It was one of the most heartbreaking scenes of my life. I will never forget seeing her face.
"Others were lying around Diana and I remember the driver looking as though he had his head in his hands. It was then that I also saw a white Fiat Uno being driven away."
The car was later reported to be registered to James Andanson, a paparazzi photographer who committed suicide in mysterious circumstances in 2000. However, the vehicle has never been found.
Mr Morel, who has written a book about his experiences, told British detectives Philip Easton and Mark Hodges that he believes Paul was in on the plot.
"I am certain he was paid to drive through the Alma tunnel. There was cash in Henri Paul's pocket when he was found dead,' said Mr Morel.
Blood tests revealed that Paul was three times over the French drink-drive limit when the crash took place. Traces of anti-depressant drugs were also found.
The inquiry headed by Lord Stevens, which has taken 1,500 witness statements, is expected to deliver its report by Christmas.


   French Fireman Christophe Pelat ..James Andanson, alleged to have burned himself to death..,...,,.John Macnamara

In the aftermath of the crash, Mohamed Al Fayed brought in his security chief John Macnamara to head a private investigation, at the behest of the Harrod’s chief. Using unique sources and excellent contacts, it did not take McNamara long to discover that Andanson owned a white Fiat Uno and that he usually kept it on his farm in Lignières in Central France.
Macnamara states that when he found this shabby white Fiat Uno, his sharp-witted investigators noted the fact that the car had been fitted with a new rear tail, which would be entirely logical if the taillight had been seriously damaged in an accident. Andanson sold the white Fiat Uno a month after the crash. Macnamara’s agent found the car in a garage but was immediately arrested for interfering with the police ‘investigation’. The police limited the hunt for the Fiat Uno to the outskirts of Paris and ruled out that it could be found anywhere else in France.

French police were alerted by Macnamara and his team of the existence of the white Fiat Uno and that it was owned by a man who had been following Diana. Rees-Jones, with what remaining memory he claims to have, recalls seeing a white Fiat Uno on the rue Cambon as they pulled off on the fateful journey. Andanson’s recently sold white Fiat Uno had been re-sprayed and there was no documentation to confirm the date of the re-spray.
One might have thought the Paris police would be grateful for the information gleaned from Macnamara’s team of investigators. On the contrary, the former Scotland Yard detective was assured that if he ‘interfered’ with the ‘investigation’ again, he would be charged with a criminal offence. Quite apart from the fact that the French were not having a British detective to be seen upstaging them, it was clear that Andanson was a non-issue, in much the same way that it was decided by senior officials in the Alma Tunnel to stick to the ‘accident’ theory within an hour of the crash.

James Andanson, who Richard Tomlinson states was on the books of MI6 as a paid freelancer, was also something of a mystery in the same genre as Henri Paul. Andanson’s real name was Jean Paul Gonin but he took the name of Andanson when he married his wife Elizabeth. He flew a Union Jack on his farmhouse, saying he “loved” Britain and the British national flag. This is an odd aberration for a Frenchman, given the traditional ‘rivalry’, to put it mildly, between France and Britain.
Andanson was one of the richest photographers in the world. But he was hated by many people, who disliked his bullying attitude and aggressive manner. Some of his ‘targets’ have described him as a ‘thug with a camera’, which indeed he used as a weapon to carve out a very comfortable living. Filmed as part of a documentary, Andanson was seen to cherish his white Fiat Uno, which was old and shabby, just as witnesses at the Alma Tunnel confirmed and were ignored by both French and British authorities, who had for once forgotten their ancient ‘rivalry’. In the documentary Andanson explains that his faithful car had taken him over a colossal distance of 325,000 kilometres.
In the Riviera resort of St jean Cap Ferrat, he ‘casually’ bumped into the owner of Fiat, the industrialist Giovanni Agnelli. The following day, Agnelli recognised Andanson in the town and struck up a short conversation. Andanson, desperate to impress, as usual, explained how he loved his Fiat and how it had been such a reliable vehicle. Agnelli, eager to play the magnanimous billionaire, promised he would give Andanson a brand new Fiat Uno when his shabby old car had done 500,000 kilometres.
Andanson, could not resist the temptation to brag about Agnelli’s generous offer. And yet, so proud of the reliable white Fiat Uno, for which he was promised a brand new replacement on completing the requisite 500,000 kilometres, just a month after the crash at the Alma Tunnel, he sold his ‘pride and joy’. As already explained, the car was refurbished with new rear tail light and re-sprayed. All the common signs of covering up ‘accidental’ damage. But the French police, incorrigibly bent on the accident theory, were not interested in Andanson and his white Fiat Uno….
One of Andanson’s colleagues at the SIPA photo agency in Paris, confirmed that Andanson had often boasted of working for French and British Intelligence services. This would fit in with Andanson’s boastful, arrogant nature, a man who believed he was untouchable. He would also boast to friends and neighbours that he was at the Alma Tunnel on the night of the crash and that police were not “clever enough to catch me.”

The arrogant braggart boasted to friends and neighbours that he even photographed and taped the last moments of Diana in the tunnel. The French Special Branch believe that Andanson’s role for the intelligence services was to harass, intimidate, watch and sometimes eliminate a personality. The French Special Branch were investigating Andanson at the time of his death on the grounds that he was suspected to have played a leading role in the ‘suicide’ of former French Prime Minister, Pierre Eugène Bérégovoy in 1993. French Special Branch believe Bérégovoy did not kill himself and was instead murdered.
Bérégovoy, apparently, had committed suicide by shooting himself ‘twice’ in the head; the second bullet was attributed to a nervous reflex, said French police, again playing the guessing game, and his death was ruled a ‘suicide’. Yet again, the Bérégovoy case is one of an ‘extraordinary’ personality defying the mechanics of human physiology by shooting himself twice in the head, the first bullet not being enough to kill him. The exit wound in his head was too small for that associated with a .357 Magnum, the alleged ‘suicide’ weapon. He left no note or letter explaining why he was going to kill himself.

French Special Branch state that there are witness statements to put Andanson in Nevers, central France, on the day Bérégovoy killed himself a couple of miles away. Andanson’s widow Elisabeth also confirms that he was in Nevers on the day Bérégovoy was found dead. Forensic evidence shows that Bérégovoy was shot from long distance and which contradicts the police report that he shot himself twice in the head. French Special Branch also reveal that Andanson was present on the day that Diana and Dodi died and he was present on the days of the deaths of Lolo Ferrari, porn star, Dalida, singer, Bernard Buffet, the painter and the pop star Claude François, who sang the French version of ‘if I had a hammer’.

Andanson certainly had an uncanny habit of approaching people who died suddenly thereafter and he was always in the immediate vicinity on the same day. The French Special Branch say that he had an ‘intuition’ that certain people were going to die and he just happened to be nearby. Of course, no one is suggesting that Andanson was clairvoyant but rather that he had inside-knowledge that someone was about to die and was probably more accurate than a clairvoyant.

And rumours abound that Andanson took the last picture of the Mercedes S280 from his white Fiat Uno and that final burst from his powerful flashbulb blinded Henri Paul, causing him to crash. A multiple burst from a flashbulb of the type used by professional photographers can cause epileptic fit and is just as strong as an Anti-Personnel Device flashgun. The crash could indeed have been accident, caused by the multiple burst from Andanson’s flashbulb but if Andanson did not intend to off-road the Mercedes, why swerve into its path?
And there is also the issue of who was driving the white Fiat Uno? Certainly, Andanson could not have driven the car and fired his camera at the same time. Witnesses say that two people were in the white Fiat Uno and one looked like he was hiding his head under a tartan blanket as the car left the Alma Tunnel.
Former senior detective John Macnamara explains the subject in this way: “You have a Mercedes that’s done a 180 degree turn, having crashed into the thirteenth pillar and yet the Fiat Uno survives everything, which suggests to me that that was a very professional driver. I can well believe, as a detective with 24 years experience, why Mr Al Fayed believes that his son Dodi and Princess Diana were murdered.”
French Special Branch also discovered from Andanson’s diary, that he spent part of the day of 23 August on the yacht Jonikal at the same time as Diana and Dodi. Commentators have spoken of the abnormality of him being on the yacht but Commander Mules suggests that Andanson had made a deal with Diana to photograph her in a high-cut swimsuit. It should be noted that Andanson once made £100,000 for a single photograph of Prince Charles with a suspected ‘mistress’, presumed to be his nanny Tiggy.

And two weeks after the crash, the Criminal Brigade finally admitted that red-and-white optical debris found in the tunnel entrance in the right-hand lane came from the rear light of a Fiat Uno built in Italy between May 1983 and September 1989. This matched the paint deposits on the front right wing mirror and body panels of a white Fiat Uno made in Italy between 1983 and 1989. Andanson’s white fiat Uno was made during the same period.

But the Criminal Brigade limited the search for the white Fiat Uno to 
two departments (districts) of Paris, near to the Alma Tunnel and the remainder of France was ruled out of the investigation. When John Macnamara’s team of detectives found Andanson’s white Fiat Uno, they were arrested and Macnamara was warned that he would be charged with a criminal offence if he interfered again with the ‘investigation’. Macnamara’s team clearly had done a professional job and were not interested in limiting their search area to a couple of Paris suburbs. But French police did not want to take the matter any further and Andanson knew only too well that the police would not be able to touch him.

In effect, Macnamara and his team of professional investigators were warned off because they were doing a better job than the French Criminal Brigade or more likely that they had got too close to the truth by finding Andanson’s white Fiat Uno. But the ever so mercurial Andanson was living on borrowed time. He bragged often to friends and neighbours, who were used to his boasts, that he was at the Alma Tunnel on the night of the crash. He also bragged to work colleagues that he was in the employ of French and British Intelligence – he was a “loose cannon”. But before he was put out of action permanently, he had much wriggling to do.
Andanson may have denied to the police that he was in Paris on 30/31 August, chasing Diana but he boasted to a neighbour of having not only been in Paris, but that he was present when Diana was killed and that he filmed and taped the incident and that could only have been from inside his white Fiat Uno, which was not driven by him. Confidential police forensic reports hidden in Judge Stephan’s report, put Andanson at the Alma Tunnel but the matter went no further and Lord Stevens has also ignored this fact.

Even though his son, James said he thought his father was grape harvesting that particular morning in Bordeaux. Apparently, he had left home at 04.00hrs to travel to Bordeaux, over three hours after the crash and more than enough time to get back home from Paris, a couple of hours’ drive away, before setting off to pick grapes and cement a cover story for future reference.

In the Paget Report, John Stevens wrote:
 ‘The initial contact between the French police and James Andanson was by telephone on 11 February 1998. Lieutenant Eric Gigou of the Brigade Criminelle tried to arrange an appointment to interview him. This was as a result of the police becoming aware of his ownership of a white Fiat Uno. The exchange was somewhat terse. Lieutenant Gigou reported that James Andanson said ‘He does not have the time to waste with the police’ and that he ‘Refuses to receive policemen in his manor and that he has no time to give.’ During this telephone call Lieutenant Gigou recorded ‘…on the day of the accident he was in Saint-Tropez and that he therefore had nothing to do with the case’ (French Dossier D4546-D4547).’
A very simple text book case for the French police. Andanson says he was not there [Alma Tunnel] and that is it, no further investigation into his implausible claim. Criminals across the world must be hoping for the same treatment. ‘I was not there, I was somewhere else, sir, when that person was killed,’ would seem to be the ideal alibi to prevent a thorough investigation. In reality the reverse is always true.

Of course, everyone knows that in criminal cases, alibis are thoroughly tested and investigated. But the French and British authorities decided from the outset that the fatal crash was an accident and there would be no criminal investigation. In the Paget Report, Stevens adopts the same dismissive stance and has only skimmed the surface of available witness testimony, which was his purpose from the outset. The faithful Establishment plod, had no intention of upsetting the apple cart from which he draws his own succour.

In essence, the paint scratches found on the Mercedes came from a white Fiat Uno but Judge Stephan ruled that the Uno played only a “passive” part in the crash. The reality is that the Mercedes was thrown off course by the Uno swerving into its path and with the combination of a series of near-blinding flashes of white light, Henri Paul slammed into the thirteenth pillar. But it all became academic in 2000, when Andanson was found dead in his BMW, 400 miles away from his home in Nant, central France, on the site of a French army training area. Andanson’s skeleton was, in fact, found by French soldiers, who had seen smoke rising on the horizon and gone to investigate the burned out wreck in the woodland. Andanson was so badly burned that he could only be identified by DNA tests. And the location in itself was something of a mystery.

Research shows that when people know they are dying, they find a primitive urge to return to the place of their birth or their favourite home. But Andanson, supposedly, threw human nature aside, drove 400 miles away from home, drove a further two miles along a potholed lane, scraped another mile along cow pastures, into dense forest, found a clearing few local people knew existed, which begs the question how he knew it existed, and set in motion the process of killing himself.

Andanson, supposedly, doused himself with over 20 litres of petrol, enough to drown him, fixed his seatbelt, locked the doors of his BMW from the outside, crossed his arms, and torched the car from the inside. When his skeleton was found, his arms, what remained of them, were still crossed. One has to imagine the sheer agony and terror of burning to death. He would have thrashed around like a madman in the final minute or so of his life but he was found, as if sitting comfortably, which is completely unbelievable.

Police believed he had killed himself, but a French fireman, Christophe Pelat, who attended the burning wreck of the car, says he appeared to have a bullet hole in his skull. Pelat has since declined to comment on whether he has been interviewed by Stevens’ detectives but has agreed to testify the Inquest in October 2007. Along with everything else, the police immediately decided that Andanson had committed suicide in the most implausibly horrific circumstances. We have never come across a case of anyone committing suicide by burning to death in car. Why not just use pills or a gun?

Conveniently, of course, the inferno destroyed all valuable forensic evidence in the car and there was little left of Andanson’s skeleton and he left no suicide note. Almost reminds one of the ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly during the prelude to the illegal Iraq war. But, right on cue, came Sir John Stevens, during the press release of the Paget Report, to tell us that he had once attended an almost identical ‘suicide’ and that we should not think it strange that Andanson killed himself in this manner. It should also be noted that Stevens did not mention the name of the victim or the incident, time, date etc. so the press could investigate the matter and we must therefore assume his tiresome little tale was produced simply for effect… 
"A lie becomes a truth and then becomes a lie again," George Orwell

Andanson’s family and particularly his widow did not accept the ‘suicide’ fantasy proposed by French Police and insisted a criminal investigation should be conducted but the police, true to form, said that the possibility that Andanson was murdered was “fantasy”. And part of the “fantasy” is that no one has ever found the keys to his locked car. In fact, the car doors were locked from the outside. Was Houdini present?

Did Andanson lock the doors from the outside and by act of magic, disappear the keys into thin air? More likely that his killers in the DST made the mistake of taking the keys with them. Nominalisation dictates that there will always be one mistake. The biggest mistake of the French police is deluding themselves that anyone with a rational brain could possibly believe their tales which defy the laws of logic.

The view in the intelligence community is that Andanson had been talking too much and someone decided to silence him 
ad infinitum before he revealed seriously damaging information in the murders of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul. There is also clear evidence, from his colleagues that he threatened to come clean about what happened that night and was prepared to release the photographs and that was quite simply a ‘bridge too far’ for his handlers.

Andanson’s friend François Dard said, 
“He told us that he was there. He was behind them. He was following behind. He saw the accident and all but he wasn’t stopped by the police. He left. It is impossible that he committed suicide. We are convinced of it. To be burned alive in a car – we don’t believe it at all.” In fact, no one with half brain cell believes that Andanson committed suicide in the circumstances ascribed. And a week after his death, the SIPA photo agency in Paris, which he co-founded, was raided by three armed men, wearing balaclavas. They shot a security guard in the foot and held dozens of employees hostage for several hours. Staff phoned the police but they did not turn up. A member of staff said: “They seemed to know exactly what they were looking for and were confident enough to remain in a busy building for several hours, though they stole nothing of real value.”

Indeed, the ‘raiders’ disabled the CCTV cameras in the offices and did not seem stressed about the police turning up. For armed ‘robbers’ they were incredibly relaxed about the whole thing. And yet again, they took computer hard drives, laptops, cameras and the storage media for photographs. They knew exactly what they were looking for. SIPA staff are convinced that the ‘raid’ had something to do with Andanson and believe French spooks carried out the seizure of property at gunpoint.

There is also talk that the ‘raiders’ many have been British SAS troopers, from the MI6’s disposal team 
The Increment, who are alleged to have been involved in the crash at the tunnel. Contacts we have spoken to in Paris, however, are adamant that the French DST were behind the armed ‘robbery’ and they were intent on removing the last damaging traces linking the DST and MI6 to the murders of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul.

As journalists we have an obligation to protect sources of information. The raid on the SIPA office was almost identical to the raids on the Big Pictures office in London and the home of Lionel Cherruault on the night after the crash. What exactly the French DST were looking for at the SIPA office is not known. It is believed, though, that there was evidence in the office, put there by Andanson, of his involvement in the crash and that he was at the tunnel. If Diana’s death was an ‘accident’, according to the theories of the British and French authorities, why were any of these raids necessary? By definition, ‘accidents’ do not need to be covered up because they are caused by chance events.

And suicidal people, usually acting impulsively, do not make intricate plans to burn themselves to death, locking the doors from the outside and losing the keys to the car. James Andanson, was murdered by the French DST to prevent him from destroying the ‘great accident theory’ and the DST were also behind the raid on the SIPA office to eliminate the last traces of evidence.

They must have thought it was the end of the story, how very wrong they were!

DIANA-Unresolved Issues

Unresolved Issues of the Diana and Dodi Inquest
by John Morgan © 2008

Nexus Magazine June-July 2008.  Vol 15, No 4

Was the verdict of the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed sound, or were the Royal Coroner's instructions to the jury part of an ongoing cover-up of what really happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?

Key Witnesses Missed
Lack of Jury Access to Evidence
Inadequacies of Early Investigations
Diana's "Rocking" Ambulance
Diana's Anti-Landmines Campaign
Was There Judicial Bias?
Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict
The Following Vehicles
Requirement of Jury Unanimity
Did Justice Prevail?

After three-and-a-half days of deliberation, the jury at the British "Coroner's Inquests into the Deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Fayed" finally delivered its verdict on Monday 7 April 2008. The 11 jurors sitting in London's Royal Courts of Justice had patiently listened to six months of evidence given by 268 witnesses.1 Their finding was that the 1997 crash which occurred in the Alma Tunnel in Paris had been caused by "unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes" (transcript, page 5, lines 5-7, page 6, lines 16-18). The Royal Coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, had pointed out that unlawful killing equates to manslaughter.
Did these final inquests (treated hereafter as the singular "inquest") answer the many questions that have surrounded the circumstances of the tragic crash? Did justice prevail, or was the inquest just another major event in continuing the cover-up of what truly happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?
One fact is certain: the over 7,000 pages of inquest transcripts and evidence now comprise the most detailed account that exists of the Paris crash and the circumstances and events surrounding it.
The jury also stated that "the crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving" of both the Mercedes and the "following vehicles", and that the Mercedes driver's judgement was impaired "through alcohol" (5.20-24,7.6-10).
This outcome from the inquest followed the French investigation, which was finalised in September 1999,- and the British investigation —Operation Paget —which was completed with the publication of the Paget Report in December 2006 ? Both these investigations found that the Alma Tunnel crash had been caused by a drunk driver, Henri Paul, who was speeding.
Even after these two lengthy inquiries and now the inquest, there still remain critical, unresolved issues.

Key Witnesses Missed

During his summing up on the morning of 31 March, Lord Justice Scott Baker claimed that the inquest had been extremely thorough and stated that the conspiracy theories regarding the crash "have been examined in the minutest detail through the evidence of over 250 witnesses" (9.21-23). The reality, though, is that there are over 50 important witnesses who were never cross-examined during this inquest. Some of these people's evidence is so central to the conclusions drawn by the jury that the omission of it could cast doubt on the validity of the final verdict.
Because the crash occurred in France, most key witnesses were not residents of the United Kingdom and therefore were outside the jurisdiction of the Royal Coroner. Throughout the inquest, the government of France—where these witnesses generally lived—solidly maintained a position of refusing to cooperate. It failed to enforce the appearance of people who did not wish to be cross-examined.
Included in this group of witnesses is Professor Dominique Lecomte, head of the Paris Institute of Forensic Medicine; she is the pathologist who carried out the first autopsy on the Mercedes driver, Henri Paul. The Paget Report revealed that, during that autopsy, 58 identifiable errors were made, including the failure to identify the body properly. Lecomte also conducted the initial external medical examinations of the bodies of Diana and Dodi.
Another vital witness who evaded an appearance at the inquest is Dr Gilbert Pepin, the Paris toxicologist who carried out the alcohol testing on blood samples from both of Henri Paul's autopsies. It is the results of his testing that led to the high blood-alcohol readings that became the basis of the French and British investigations' conclusion that the crash was caused by a drunk driver.
Generally during this inquest, when a witness was not made available for cross-examination, their statement(s) to the French or British police were read out instead. In the case of Lecomte and Pepin, who both had signed statements with the British police, these statements were not read out to the jury. Thus the jury was not provided with any direct evidence from the two most important witnesses regarding the circumstances in which the alleged blood-alcohol results from the driver of the Mercedes were based—yet it is these blood test results that are central to the jury's finding that Henri Paul was guilty of gross negligence.
It is difficult to overstate the importance to this inquest of the evidence of Lecomte and Pepin. The question has to be asked: if Lecomte and Pepin have nothing to hide, then why did they not want to cooperate with the British inquest?
If Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered, then Lecomte and Pepin would have played key roles in the aftermath and the ensuing French cover-up.
There are many other important witnesses who were not cross-examined. They include:
•   Tom Richardson, an American tourist who was the first pedestrian to rush  into  the  Alma Tunnel immediately after hearing the noise of  the   crash.     He   was   never interviewed by either the French or the British investigators.
•   David Laurent, who had to
 swerve to avoid a slow-moving, old-model, light-coloured Fiat Uno-type car as he entered the Alma Tunnel, just  seconds  before  the  crash occurred behind him.   His evidence is critical, as paint from an old-model white Fiat Uno was found on the Mercedes after the crash, and that Fiat Uno has never been officially identified. Laurent also was never interviewed by the British police.
•  Father Frank Gelli, Diana's local Anglican minister at St
 Mary Abbots Church near Kensington Palace.  He was a friend of Diana, and stated in a media interview in 2000 that Diana had asked him if he would perform the wedding when she married Dodi.   Gelli performs a service in memory of Diana on 31 August each year outside the gates of Kensington Palace.   He was never interviewed by either the French or the British investigators.
•  Michel Massebeuf, the driver of Diana's ambulance following
 the crash.   He is one of only three people who were in the ambulance, which didn't deliver Diana to the hospital until 2.06 am—one hour and 41 minutes after the crash.   Massebeuf was never interviewed by the British police.
•  A female student intern who was another one of the three
 people in Diana's ambulance. She assisted the ambulance doctor and must have been involved in administering Diana's treatment. This woman was never interviewed or named in any police investigation and remains anonymous to this day.
•  Nicholas Langman and Richard Spearman, both MI6 agents
 who were operating out of the British Embassy in Paris at the end of August 1997.  It has been alleged that both were involved in the organisation of the crash. They both made statements to the British investigators; these were not included in the Paget Report and were not read to the jury during the inquest.

Lack of Jury Access to Evidence

The entire inquest process was hamstrung by the fact that witnesses were unable to recall clearly the detail of events that occurred so long ago. Throughout the six months of evidence, there were countless instances where those being cross-examined said: "I'm sorry. It is ten years ago now. I cannot remember."
For the jury, this problem was exacerbated by the antiquated rule whereby they were unable to have access to the earlier official statements of cross-examined witnesses, which had been given during the initial French investigation and the later British Operation Paget. Many of the French eyewitness statements were taken within hours of the crash. It should be obvious to all concerned that these original statements, taken very soon after the events, would provide more accuracy than witness cross-examination over 10 years later. On the morning of 11 December 2007, the jurors themselves requested access to these statements. After some discussion in the Court, Lord Justice Scott Baker's decision was: "No, you cannot have the statements" (66.7).
It is evident that if this had been an inquest without a jury, then the Coroner would have had access to all witness statements. Why should a jury have been any different?

Inadequacies of Early Investigations

The failure of the French authorities to carry out a thorough and adequate investigation in the first place, when the events were still fresh in the minds of key witnesses, also contributed to the difficulties that faced the inquest.
Take, for instance, the evidence of Alberto Repossi, the jeweller who sold Dodi Fayed the "engagement ring" (he was cross-examined on 10 December 2007). Repossi was never interviewed by the French, and thus his first testimony was not taken until the British Operation Paget officers interviewed him in September 2005, eight years after the crash.
Likewise, Brian Anderson (17 October 2007. afternoon), a passenger in a taxi following behind the Mercedes and thus a key eyewitness to the crash, according to police records was never interviewed by the French. His first official testimony was taken by British officers on 31 August 2004, precisely seven years after the events he had to describe. To the shame of both the French and the British investigators, there are no records of any attempts being made to locate the driver of the taxi that Brian Anderson was in.
American Joanna da Costa (formerly Luz) (22 October 2007, afternoon), one of the first two pedestrian eyewitnesses on the crash scene, was never interviewed by the French investigators. Her only interview was taken by the British police on 23 August 2004, but for some unknown reason this testimony was never included in the official police Paget Report.
Where delays of up to a decade or more in the hearing of evidence have occurred, it is obvious that the accuracy of testimony could have been compromised.
The recently completed inquest did, however, help to highlight the some of the areas where the early French investigation failed abysmally. For example, the inquest showed up mistakes made during the initial night-time investigations. Under cross-examination, French investigators blamed some of these errors on poor lighting. Sergeant Thierry Clotteaux (6 November, afternoon) admitted that "the lights were not so great" (50.17-18). Another police investigator, Hubert Pourceau (6 November, morning), stated that a 19-metre-long (Mercedes) tyre mark (7 November, 16.5-9) was missed "...because it was night-time and it was not very visible. They couldn't see it" (40.12-13).
This begs the question: where was the forensic lighting that one would expect at any night-time crash scene, let alone the scene of arguably the most important car crash of the 20th century?
Investigators revealed that during the night they had to rely on the lights of the emergency vehicles; then, after those vehicles had left the scene, they were reduced to using the dim tunnel lighting.   Apparently they didnt even have their own torches!

Diana's "Rocking" Ambulance

On the morning of 17 October 2007, a statement given to the French investigation by Thierry Orban, a photographic reporter, was read out to the inquest. Referring to the ambulance carrying Princess Diana, Orban stated: "I then followed the ambulance, preceded by motorcyclists and followed by a police car which kept us at a distance. After the Pont d'Austerlitz, opposite the Natural History Museum, the ambulance stopped, the driver got out hurriedly and got into the back. That was when I took the only photo of the ambulance, which is in any case blurred. It was rocking, as if they were doing a cardiac massage" (12.25, 13.1-8). This stoppage occurred within 500 metres of the hospital gates.
In his statement to Operation Paget, Dr Martino, who was inside the ambulance, explained the situation: "I had the vehicle stopped in order to re-examine the Princess... I did not do any cardiac massage at that moment but it is not easy to do cardiac massage or resuscitation with a vehicle moving" (Report, p. 515).
The ambulance driver Michel Massebeuf s statement to the French investigation was read to the inquest on the morning of 14 November. He described what happened: "However, in front of the Jardin des Plantes, the doctor [Martino] asked me to stop. We stopped for about five minutes, in order for him to be able to provide treatment that required a complete absence of movement" (23.15-20).
This evidence raises the question: why did Thierry Orban witness a rocking ambulance if there was no cardiac massage taking place and "complete absence of movement" was required? This question was not put to Dr Martino when he was cross-examined on the afternoon of 24 January 2008.
The statements by Thierry Orban and Michel Massebeuf were both inexplicably omitted from the Paget Report. Also, it is not known why Orban and Massebeuf were not cross-examined during this inquest.

Diana's Anti-Landmines Campaign

A significant portion of inquest time was dedicated to evidence regarding the possibility that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death. This is a proposition put forward by the conspiracy camp as a possible motive for murder. The evidence, or lack thereof, has always indicated that this would appear to be an issue impossible to prove either way.
If Diana was murdered, more likely as possible motives would have been other factors: the rapidly developing relationship between Diana and Dodi, and Diana's prominent and effective involvement in the international anti-landmines campaign.
Diana's anti-landmines activity was a possible motive for murder that was almost completely ignored by the 832-page Paget Report, produced by Lord Stevens in December 2006.
Michael Mansfield, QC, acting on behalf of Dodi Fayed's father Mohamed Al Fayed throughout the inquest, provided some compelling arguments regarding her campaign. During his cross-examination of the Conservative former Minister for the Armed Forces, The Hon. Nicholas Soames, MP (12 December 2007, afternoon), Mansfield quoted Soames's Tory colleagues at the time. One told Diana: "Don't meddle with things about which you know nothing" (81.15-16). Another described Diana as a "loose cannon" (75.25) when referring to her visit to the minefields of Angola in January 1997. Soames himself in 1997 portrayed Diana, Princess of Wales, as a "totally unguided missile" (64.6).
Soames is alleged by Diana's close friend Simone Simmons to have directly threatened Diana with an "accident" if she continued with her anti-landmines activities. On the morning of 10 January 2008, Simmons gave evidence regarding a four-inch-thick anti-landmines dossier, titled "Profiting Out Of Misery", which Diana compiled in the last year of her life. Simmons stated that Diana claimed the dossier "...would prove that the British Government and many high-ranking public figures were profiting from their [landmines] proliferation in countries like Angola and Bosnia. The names and companies were well known, it was explosive and top of her list of culprits behind this squalid trade was the Secret Intelligence Service, the SIS [MI6], which she believed was behind the sale of so many of the British-made landmines that were causing so much misery to so many people. 'I'm going to go public with this and name names,' she declared" (52.13-22).
London Daily Mail journalist and close friend of Diana, Richard Kay, said in his testimony to the inquest on 20 December (morning) that he received a phone call from Diana just hours before she died. He confirmed that during this call the Princess stated that she fully intended to "complete her obligations to...the anti-personnel landmines cause" (28.17-18). Kay said that this would have involved a future visit to the minefields of South East Asia.

Was There Judicial Bias?

During Lord Justice Scott Baker's two-and-a-half days of summing up to the jury, he made some statements that should be subjected to scrutiny.
On the afternoon of 31 March 2008, during his discussion of Diana's fears for her life, the Coroner stated: "One might have thought that if Diana had really feared for her life, she would have mentioned it to Mohamed Al Fayed at the time of the conversation with him shortly before the crash, when he said she told him she was pregnant and engaged" (129.23-25, 130.1-2).
In saying this, Baker appeared to disregard the fact that Diana could not possibly have known the crash was about to occur. Why would she particularly mention it at that stage when she was on holiday, happy and in love, and she had already discussed her fears with Mohamed Al Fayed earlier during that summer.
Early on 1 April, during his summing up of evidence given by Diana's butler Paul Burrell (14-16 January 2008), Baker recounted what Burrell alleges he was told by Her Majesty the Queen in December 1997: "Be careful, Paul; no one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are powers at work in this country of which we have no knowledge. Do you understand?" (5.9-12)
The Coroner then went on to say: "Members of the jury, assuming something like those words were said, you may think it stretches one's imagination to breaking point to conclude that they have the remotest thing to do with a staged collision in a tunnel three and a half months before" (5.18-22). 
Burrell had only recently lost his boss in a car crash, the circumstances of which raised many unanswered questions. Yet Baker was effectively making out that the jurors were fools if they saw any connection between the Paris crash and the Queen's comment. Given the context in which Burrell had met his former boss, the Queen, because of post-crash events, and given that the meeting was within a few months of the crash, it seems reasonably logical that the comment could have had some connection with the crash.
Later on the same day, 1 April, Baker summarised the evidence of David Laurent, who was driving through the tunnel ahead of the Mercedes immediately before the crash. In his statements that were read to the jury on the morning of 11 October 2007, Laurent related that he had to swerve to avoid a slow-moving car as he entered the Alma Tunnel. Baker stated that Laurent described this car as "a small light hatchback" (107.3-4). A closer look at David Laurent's evidence shows that he gave two descriptions of this car. In his first statement, given to the French police on 14 October 1997, he said: "It was a small light-coloured hatchback car" (23.17). His second statement, given to the French police in April 1998, has more detail: "It was an old model, a light coloured, white or beige, a Fiat Uno type car" (53.2-3). The Coroner changed "light coloured, white or beige" to "light", giving a completely different meaning to the description (107.4). Furthermore, he failed to mention "old model" and "Fiat Uno type car".
Laurent's evidence is important because it indicates that the Fiat Uno, which made contact with the Mercedes immediately before the main crash, was seen moving slowly beforehand. This could corroborate later evidence given by Souad Moufakkir (6 November, afternoon), who also claimed to have seen the Fiat Uno slowing down prior to the crash. Laurent's evidence of the Uno being an old model was corroborated by George Dauzonne (29 October, morning), who was a witness to the Fiat Uno as it left the tunnel after the crash.

Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict

On the morning of 31 March, at the start of his summing up, Lord Justice Scott Baker announced to the jury that he was withdrawing murder from the possible verdicts available to them. He stated: "My direction in law to you is that it is not open to you to find that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed in a staged accident" (13.25, 14.1-2).
Baker went on to explain: "When a coroner leaves a verdict of unlawful killing, in this case on the basis of a staged accident, to a jury, he must identify to the jury the evidence on which they could be sure of such a conclusion. But in this case sufficient evidence simply does not exist" (14.11-15).
In what then may have seemed confusing to the jury, Baker continued: "This does not, however, mean that all the suggestions you have heard about the possibility of a staged crash are irrelevant.
Because there is some evidence, albeit limited and of doubtful quality, that the crash was staged, it will be necessary for you to consider it in the context of the five verdicts that are open to you" (14.18-24).
Baker appeared to be conceding that there was evidence of a staged crash, but not enough to enable him to allow the jury to be given the opportunity to decide that it was murder.
This inquest was conducted in the midst of a background of unanswered questions regarding the crash that occurred in circumstances which have led millions of people around the world to believe it is possible that Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed were murdered. The jury members faithfully sat there through the six months of evidence, believing they had been assigned the task of determining whether this was in fact the case.
It could be argued that, at the very last moment, the Coroner virtually pulled the rug out from underneath the inquest. The very purpose of the inquest was to establish whether Diana and Dodi were murdered.
The very purpose of having a jury make the decision was in order to remove the possibility of an Establishment cover-up. What happened is that at the very end of the inquest. Coroner Baker ruled that the jury should no longer be entrusted with the power to decide on whether a murder took place. In so doing, instead of quelling allegations of a cover-up, Baker added fuel to them.

The Following Vehicles

After this decision by the Coroner, the jury was left with five possible verdicts (31.24-25, 32.1-6):
1)  unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles);
2)  unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the
3)  unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following
 vehicles and of the Mercedes);
4)  accidental death;
5)  open verdict.

In giving these options, the Coroner also removed the possibility of the Mercedes's contact with the white Fiat Uno— which was travelling ahead of the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel—having an influence on the crash. During the inquest, clear forensic evidence was shown that proved the Mercedes was involved in a collision with this car. Because the Fiat Uno was in front of the Mercedes, it cannot be included in the term "following vehicles" in the possible verdict provided to the jury. Baker has failed to explain why he removed the Fiat Uno from suspicion as a possible cause of the crash.
As discussed earlier, the jury chose the third option: "unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes)".
The reason that the description is "following vehicles" is because these vehicles remain unidentified. It is therefore very surprising that in virtually every media report describing the jury verdict, the words "following vehicles" have been replaced by the word "paparazzi". There is actually no evidence which indicates that these vehicles were in fact driven by paparazzi.
Eyewitnesses near the Alma Tunnel described several motorbikes closely pursuing or surrounding the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel:

•  Olivier Partouche, a chauffeur who was standing near his car across the road from the tunnel, witnessed a Mercedes "immediately followed by a number of motorcycles" (24 October, morning, 6.9-10).

•  Francois Levistre, who was travelling ahead of the Mercedes,
 described seeing through his rear-vision mirror a "vehicle surrounded on either side by motorbikes" in his first statement made to French police on 1 September 1997, one day after the crash (Paget Report, p. 455; also see inquest transcript, 15 October, afternoon).

•  Brian Anderson, who was travelling in a taxi that was
 overtaken by the speeding vehicles, described three motorbikes that "were in a cluster, like a swarm around the Mercedes" (17 October, afternoon, 98.24-25).

Thus the eyewitness evidence clearly shows that the "following vehicles" mentioned in the jury verdict are in fact several motorbikes that were seen very close to the Mercedes as it entered the Alma Tunnel.
On the afternoon of 2 October 2007, Scott Baker identified eight paparazzi who were near the Mercedes as it left Place de la Concorde. They were Benhamou, Guizard, Odekerken, Martinez, Arnal, Rat, Darmon and Chassery (95.10-11). It was also revealed that Benhamou rode a green Honda scooter; Guizard drove a grey Peugeot 205; Odekerken drove a Mitsubishi Pajero; Martinez and Arnal were in a black Fiat Uno; Rat and Darmon were on a blue Honda 650 motorcycle; and Chassery drove a black Peugeot 205 (94.3-10). 
This evidence shows that of the paparazzi pursuing the Mercedes, there was actually only one motorbike, a Honda 650. All the other pursuing paparazzi were either in cars or on a scooter.

On 7 November 2007, Paget accident investigator Anthony Read revealed to the inquest that French investigators had conducted tests on the performance of a Honda 650, comparing it with the Mercedes S280 (afternoon, 103). They found that at full acceleration over 1,400 metres, the Honda 650 was the equivalent of 17 per cent slower than the Mercedes. Darmon, who was driving the Honda, gave evidence to the inquest (29 October, afternoon) that he lost sight of the Mercedes after he turned right, onto the expressway, after leaving Place de la Concorde. With Rat his passenger, they were the first of the paparazzi to arrive at the crash scene.

After analysing the evidence, it becomes very clear that it is quite impossible for any of the motorbikes surrounding or closely pursuing the Mercedes as it entered the Alma Tunnel to have carried paparazzi. Instead, the motorbikes were unidentified— which is why they have been described in the jury's verdict simply as "the following vehicles".

It is clear, however, from early eyewitness evidence that camera flashes were seen on the expressway just before the Alma Tunnel:

• Bruno Bouaziz, a French police lieutenant, said in his 31 August 1997 statement, which was read out to the jury on the afternoon of 12 November 2007: "Witnesses told the first police to arrive at the scene that the Princess's car was travelling at high speed, chased by photographers on motorcycles. Others saw the Mercedes slowed down by a Ford Mondeo vehicle  so that photographers riding motorcycles could take photographs" (118.18-23).

•  Olivier Partouche said in a statement taken six hours after the
 crash:   "...I think that I saw flashes before the vehicles disappeared into the underpass" (24 October, morning, 26.1-3).

•  Clifford Gooroovadoo, who was standing near Partouche,
 said in his first statement, taken two hours after the crash, that he "saw a motorbike with two people on it and also saw that the pillion passenger of this motorbike was taking one photo after another in the direction of the vehicle that was making the noise [the Mercedes]" (12 March 2008, morning, 76.20-23).

•  Benoit Boura (24 October, morning) was travelling
 eastbound (the opposite way to the Mercedes) towards the Alma Tunnel. He said in his second statement of 31 August 1997 that "before all this [the crash] happened, therefore before entering the tunnel, I saw flashes in the distance" (Paget Report, p. 454).
On the morning of 27 November 2007, Baker himself stated: "I am very interested in trying to find any...photographs showing the journey of the Mercedes before the collision" (48.12-15).

It is evident that if these photos of Diana and Dodi's final moments before the crash had been taken by paparazzi, then they would be worth millions of pounds and somehow they would have surfaced after the crash—whether in newspapers, TV or over the Internet. But no such photos have ever been published.

This raises the question: who took these photos through the untinted windows of the Mercedes S280 on its final trip? Were they men on motorbikes masquerading as paparazzi with the purpose of harming the occupants of the Mercedes, but hoping that blame would later be attributed to the paparazzi?

It is to the shame of both the French and British inquiries that, after five years of "thorough" investigation, none of these motorbikes has been identified.

There are also motorbikes—probably the same ones—that were seen fleeing the crash scene, and cars including the white Fiat Uno that were witnessed fleeing after the crash. The reality is that the police on both sides of the Channel have only ever officially identified one vehicle in this entire case, and that is the crashed Mercedes S280.

The question must be raised: if the riders, passengers and drivers of the vehicles that were clearly witnessed fleeing the crash scene have nothing to hide, why is it that not one of them has come forward to explain their actions?

Requirement of Jury Unanimity

On the morning of 31 March 2008, as Coroner Scott Baker commenced his lengthy summing up, he instructed the jury: "Whatever your verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be unanimous. There are circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted, but they have not arisen in this case and, if they do, I shall give you a separate direction about it" (15.5-10).
Later, on the morning of 2 April, just before he sent the jury out to deliberate, he reiterated: "With each verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be the verdict of all 11 of you" (51.22-23).
At 3.30 pm on 7 April, after the jury had been out for three-and-a-half days without reaching a unanimous verdict, the Coroner told them: "The position is this, that the time has now been reached when I am able to accept from you a verdict upon which at least nine of you are agreed" (full-day transcript, 3.15-18).

There is no correlation between Baker's earlier requirement that the verdict must be unanimous, and his later statement that some sort of mysterious time limit had been reached and the rules could be changed to a majority of nine being acceptable. The Coroner had already stated on 31 March that the "circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted have not arisen in this case". On 7 April, he made no attempt to explain in what way the circumstances had now changed to enable a majority verdict to be acceptable.

This evidence indicates that, in reality, the result in the case of the inquest into the deaths of Diana and Dodi should have been a hung jury.

Did Justice Prevail?

Did the inquest achieve justice for Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul? 
The following restraints were placed on the jury:

•  no access to original witness statements, despite the crash
 having occurred over 10 years before:

•  a large number of crucial witnesses failing to give evidence
 and not being required to;

•  removal by the Coroner of murder as a possible verdict open
 to the jury.

Was the inquest really thorough?
Were the jury members provided with the evidence that really would have enabled them to achieve a unanimous verdict?
Did the Coroner place trust in the ability of the jury to be able to decide on the evidence?
It seems almost unfair that the jury should have been expected to reach a verdict in the above circumstances. It is as though the jury members achieved a verdict with at least one hand tied behind their back.
It would also seem likely that the general public's perception, that the British and French governments have not been up front about the circumstances and events surrounding the Paris crash, would seem justified by the way in which this inquest was conducted.

To those who say "It's over ten years now; it's time to move on": does the fact that a crime or a gross injustice occurred a decade ago mean that it is of less importance and significance than if it happened yesterday?
It is this attitude of public complacency and wanting to "move on" by so many people that has helped enable one of the greatest crimes and, equally, one of the greatest cover-ups  of our  time  to  have  been perpetrated and successfully carried out.

1.   To view and download transcripts
 and other published material from the "Coroner's Inquests into the Deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Al Fayed", go to http://www.scottbakerinquests.gov.uk. Note that the page numbering in the transcripts is at the bottom of each page.
2.   To view and download an English
 translation of the final report by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Paris, originally obtained by the London Sunday Times, go tohttp://www.geocities.com/wellesley/6226/report.htm?200613.
3. To view and download the Operation Paget inquiry report, go to http://www.met.police.uk/news/operation_paget_report.htm.

About the Author:John Morgan is an investigative journalist and writer based in Brisbane, Australia. Since 2005, he has carried out extensive full-time research into the circumstances surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. His book, Cover-up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report (available from http://www.thedianaplot.  com and http://www.allbookstores.com ), is reviewed in this edition of NEXUS.
John    Morgan    can    be   contacted    by   email    at