OCTOBER 10TH 2013 DAILY STAR
' CRUSADE LED TO DIANA'S MURDER'
On the day that Andrew has been back in the U.K. for three years since leaving his beloved Germany, and all
there that means so much to him, is this article and one that I can say personally is much nearer the truth than others
It speaks about my giving a heartfelt speech at the Daily Star awards ceremony that moved people to tears
that inadvertently signed my death warrant. It concerned my anti-landmine campaign. I was speaking at London's
prestigious Savoy Hotel and somewhere years ago incidentally Andrew worked as a bell boy back in 1979! I had chosen
the 'Daily Star Gold Awards' to show the world why I was channeling my energy into wiping out landmines.
I drew attention to Chris Moon a former Marine who lost an arm and a leg in trying to clear a minefield in
Mozambique. Now John Morgan, the author, also says that I had another agenda for attending the award ceremony.
Days before it I having received a significant death threat call as witnessed by my friend Simone Simmons who was with
me at K.P. at the time I recieved it from a powerful establishment figure!
"Drop the anti-landmines campaign, you never know when an accident is going to happen!" was said and
I have spoken about this on my site so it being reported today somewhat verifies it's being fact not fiction!
The article today saying that this being when I began secretly filming seven videos, 12 hours of footage
using an ex-B.B.C. cameraman to assist me. John Morgan telling I was desperate that my story be recorded in the event
of something happening to me. I add---let's face it nobody calls Diana, Princess of Wales to issue a death threat for a
joke and for them to be able to speak to me personally they would have had to prove who they were to the person who
initially took the call and passed it to me or had my personal mobile number and this as already stated I changed with
regularity. Perhaps the callers I.D. will be revealed when the person who responded to the call first says it even
anonymously which would prove so helpful naturally! Remember M.P. Nicholas Soames saying I was speaking
"PSYCHOBABBLE" in the infamous Panorama Interview and someone in the establishment saying I was a "LOOSE
The article saying I kept a thick dossier, an extensive one, I spent months compiling regarding my
anti-landmine campaign, I always did my homework,yes, which is why when I spoke out about things, I never spoke
about them in ignorance and that is what made me dangerous, someone to fear as indeed I was! Todays article saying I
didn't heed the warning given and wasn't going to being the stubborn woman I was and so the option to remove me was
one given to M.I.6. according to John Morgan in his new book "Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of
My concluding comment being there is never any smoke without fire and to my enemies, it is a fact
that you can run but can't hide!"
October 12th 2013 DAILY EXPRESS HEADLINE
DIANA; POLICE ORDERED TO HUNT FOR S.A.S. ASSASSIN
Scotland Yard is under pressure to launch a full-scale inquiry into sensational allegations that the S.A.S assassinated
Diana, Princess of Wales and her companion Dodi Fayed in Paris on August 31st 1997.
The lawyer acting on behalf of Dodi's father; Mohamed al-Fayed urged detectives to finally get to the truth and use
their powers to seize documents and make arrests. Simon McKay speaking after it emerged that a third witness has
corroborated claims from a former S.A.S. sniper who apparently boasted how the elite regiment were involved in the
deaths of the couple and their chauffeur Henri Paul in the Parisian underpass.
A small team of detectives have been involved assessing these allegations as a part of a "Scoping Exercise"since
they were claimed in August 2013. Police Chiefs have so far refused to launch a proper murder investigation amid
fears that the claims will be 'Swept under the carpet'.
A full inquiry would enable Scotland Yard to go to S.A.S. H/Q in Hereford and find out who was serving when the
incident happened and Mr. McKay made a serious point saying "There can be no serious question that the statement
attributed to 'Soldier N' was in fact made and therefore the necessary legal threshold crossed for a proper
invest'gation to now be launched as opposed to the present "Scoping Exercise" which is a somewhat ambiguous term
for the current action being taken by the Metropolitan Police.
The al-Fayed's also question the decision to appoint D.C. Philip Easton as head of the exercise as he was a part of
the original Scotland Yard's Operation Paget Inquiry which concluded the deaths were a tragic accident. The family
have urged that he be replaced with another detective in the interests of "transparency and fairness".
"The heat is on and I know that there will be every effort made to quash the truth as the repercussions of its exposure
are going to be enormous so saying this I also know that ultimately the truth will come out and the British legal system
itself be under scrutiny as it is all a part of a cleansing very necessary, which is why family favourite no less than former
Sir Jimmy Saville by example exposed as being perhaps the U.K.'s biggest pedophile. He fooled everyone and I include
myself in that bracket incidentally. Similarly Rolf Harris the entertainer is currently under investigation for similar
crimes. With these events as well as others being exposed all over the world in numerous areas there can, I feel, be no
better time for the jigsaw pieces of what really happened in Paris being put together!
Had it have been a road traffic accident, it would not be something currently
investigated and the tunnel would have been closed to traffic for at least 24 hours
and certainly not professionally cleansed as the image shows all too clearly happened.
I said that the operation was not as professional as it might have been and so why
would I have said this years ago had it have been careless or drunken driving on the
part of Henri Paul? It wasn't! It does not take Einstein to work out that the theories
of it having been such being defunct, there is too much evidence to support the fact
that they are bogus.
In life I dealt with the truth about things and did not buy into the fiction fed to people
about them and showed this by my hands on and personal intervention in them. I
might be dead but I am still very much alive so work that one out but I did say
'She won't go quietly!'
I cannot say that this current inquiry will prove successful in determining the truth
as opposition to it being both powerful and indeed influential as so much is at stake.
What I can say is the fact it is even happening clearly illustrates that the original one
was false and corrupt and that is extremely telling in itself!
Even if this one is successfully doctored though, one thing is certain: ultimately the truth about the incident in Paris
costing three lives will come out as truth always does eventually. I also said that it is a truth which will dramatically
affect the continuation of the British Monarchy, seriously calling that into question for all too obvious reasons.
A future mapped out for him as King is not something I want for my eldest son William and neither for Harry and I am
doing all I can in my power to make sure such a destiny is not either of theirs to carry and that I admit to. I am,
logically determined anyway, dead so cannot be stopped in my tracks from doing so, can I, which gives me reason to
A Royal Exposure
Diana, Princess of Wales, reported a plot to assassinate her. Diana documented her concerns in a letter that she
entrusted to the former Royal Butler, Mr Paul Burrell. She identified the man behind the plot.
Diana was warned about a conspiracy against her by a sympathetic insider. A member of the Royal Family warned
the princess: "You need to be discreet, even in your own home, because 'they' are listening all the time."
After many years of experience as a senior employee of the Royal household, Mr Burrel recalls: "It is a matter of
routine that members of government and the royal family are monitored." Princess Diana complained of being spied
upon and bugged by "dark forces". She declined the police protection provided by Scotland Yard because these
officers are considered "tools of the state". Burrell revealed that Diana was tipped-off by a private contact within the
intelligence community: "She was being cautious, not paranoid, because she was acting on sound information
received from someone who had worked for the British intelligence services; a man whose expertise, advice and
friendship the Princess came to rely on."
Soon after her divorce from Prince Charles, Diana wrote in a letter to Mr Burrell: "This phase in my life is the most
dangerous". Afraid that she was about to be assassinated, Diana decided to leave a written record naming those who
were plotting her downfall. In a letter dated October 1996, Diana identified one of the key individuals who she
suspected was "planning an accident in my car".
Ten months after she wrote that letter, her prediction came true. Princess Diana and her boyfriend Mr Dodi Fayed
were killed early on the morning of 31 August 1997 when their Mercedes, driven by chauffeur Henri Paul, crashed in
the Pont de L' Alma road tunnel in Paris, France. The events surrounding Diana's death are cloaked by a catalogue
of unexplained anomalies and unanswered questions, which have led the majority of people in Britain to doubt the
official explanation that she died by accident.
The Daily Mirror became the first newspaper to report the news that Diana named the person who was planning to
have her killed in a car crash. The names of the conspirator was censored - blacked out for "legal reasons". The
newspaper suggested that Diana might have been referring to "the Establishment" which they described as "an
undefined, invisible network of interlocking social circles". The newspaper also suggested that Diana "might have
been referring to the domestic intelligence service MI5" because "the Queen does not know of its secret work and
darker practices". The Queen of England herself has warned Mr Burrell that "There are powers at work in this country
about which we have no knowledge."
No mainstream source has mentioned Prince Edward yet, or his secret society connections. We are the first to
name him. His Royal Highness, Prince Edward George Nicholas Paul Patrick, has been Grand Master of British
Freemasonry since 1967. This powerful role as the most senior Freemason carries the title "The Most Worshipful".
As the cousin of the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Edward is also Duke of Kent. The Prince is also Field
Marshall of the Knights of the Garter (an elite medieval chivalrous Order based on Holy Grail mythology), as well as
Hereditary Grand Master of Anglo-American Freemasonry, and holds a whole host of other influential positions which
mean nothing to outsiders.
Prince Edward's status as a senior member of the British Royal family, together with his high-ranking position in the
world's most established secret societies, give Prince Edward unparalleled influence and privileged access to
high-ranking officials in the intelligence and security services throughout the world.
Wittingly or unwittingly, Princess Diana created a problem for the establishment. Her high-profile campaign against
land mines threatened to undermine the UK's single most economically important industry - the international arms
trade. Her sons are the sole heirs to the British throne, and Diana was becoming too popular and too powerful.
Somehow, she had to be stopped. A few centuries ago a courtier in Diana's position could be easily disposed of at
the Tower of London, but these days the authorities are more sophisticated.
Below this introductory note is the letter I penned at my desk in K.P. ten months before the incident in Paris
happening and that I gave to him for safe keeping. In Paul's words he writes the following in his book 'A Royal Duty' and
I feel it important significant points made in it are drawn attention to as this will assist in painting the broader picture
which is important to do naturally!"
Princess Diana warned 10 months before she died in a letter to Paul Burrell that there was a plot to kill her to clear
the way for Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles. In a handwritten letter on Kensington Palace notepaper to
Burrell, Diana wrote:
"I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and
hold my head high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. (The princess then identified where she felt
the threat and danger would come from) ... is planning "an accident" in my car, brake failure and serious head injury
in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry.
I have been battered, bruised and abused mentally by a system for years now, but I feel no resentment, I carry no
hatred. I am weary of the battles, but I will never surrender. am strong inside and maybe that a problem for my
Thank you Charles, for putting me through such hell and for giving me the opportunity to learn from the cruel things
you have done to me.
I have gone forward fast and have cried more than anyone will ever know.The anguish nearly killed me, but my inner
strength has never let me down, and my guides have taken such good care of me up there.
Aren't I fortunate to have had their wings to protect me..."
If there was one thing about life at KP the princess loathed it was the inescapable feeling of constantly being listened
to or watched. In my opinion, she was telling me to be careful of everyone because no one more than the Queen
understood the position in which I found myself, and the closeness I had shared with the princess.
In one particular period of anxiety, in October 1996, the princess called me from my pantry. I met her half-way down
the stairs. In the autumn of 1996, she had an overpowering feeling she was "in the way". She certainly felt that "the
system" didn't appreciate her work and that, for as long as she was on the scene, Prince Charles could never
properly move on. "I have become strong, and they don't like it when I am able to do good and stand on my own two
feet without them," she said.
In the final two years of her life, the princess grew increasingly concerned about the security around her. Ever since
the separation in 1992, she felt she had grown in stature, and she was ready to take on the world in her humanitarian
In this extract he tells of the princess's increasing concern that she had made powerful enemies and how she was
convinced 'they' were determined to spy on her and control her movements. It is a matter of routine that members of
government and the Royal Family are monitored. It is naive of anyone to think that the princess, from the moment she
married Prince Charles, would not have had her telephone calls bugged, or that the associations she made were not
checked. It was one of the reasons why she shed her police protection. She didn't trust the police as tools of the
state. In fact, she had a deep-seated suspicion about anything and everything to do with the state.
Like the royal household, the intelligence services are given carte blanche to act in whatever way is considered to
be in the best interests of state and monarchy. No one is more aware than I of the knowledge locked away inside my
head. In choosing to impart certain information to me, the princess ensured I shared a historic knowledge.
She felt there was a concerted attempt by what she referred to as the "anti-Diana brigade" to undermine her in
thepublic's eyes. We spoke about the continuing role of Tiggy Legge-Bourke. We spoke about Camilla Parker Bowles
and whether Charles really loved her. Inevitably, we spoke about how the princess felt undervalued and
unappreciated. But the basis of the conversation seemed to be her worries about what the future held.
She knew that. So, in that regard, "the powers" were discreetly at work in all my years at Highgrove and Kensington
Palace. She made me constantly aware of it, and the need to be vigilant.
She might have been referring to that unknown quantity called "the Establishment", an undefined, invisibe network
of interlocking social circles of the great and the good. She might have been referring to the domestic intelligene
service MI5 because, have no doubt, the Queen does not know of its secret work and darker practices but she is
aware of the power it is capable of wielding.
She said she was "constantly puzzled" by the attempts of Prince Charles's sympathisers to "destroy me". It was a
"down day", and the princess needed to talk. She was being cautious, not paranoid, because she was acting on
sound information received from someone who had worked for the British intelligence services; a man whose
expertise, advice and friendship the princess came to rely on.
She was later to be proved right, to some degree, when her humanitarian work in Angola in early 1997 led to
suggestions that she was a "loose cannon" who was doing more harm than good. She worried about devices being
placed in plug sockets, light switches or lamps. Some will dismiss this kind of worrying as outright paranoia. If such
worries were in isolation and devoid of rational reasoning, I would tend to agree but the critics who were far too
eager to dismiss her as paranoid didn't realise she had good reason to be concerned.
She wrote down what she was thinking but didn't articulate her justification for doing so. I think she would have fet
silly, or perhaps embarrassed. She just wanted to put it down. It was, in a way, her insurance for the future.
So hi-tech were the intelligence facilities that a conversation could be listened to from a surveillance van parked
outside, transmitting a signal into the building and using mirrors to bounce it back.
So, what did she mean? All I know is what I heard. It wasn't quantified or expanded upon, neither was it
melodramatically delivered. I walked away and accepted what had been said as it had been intended as sound advice
to be vigilant.
That letter has been part of the burden I have carried since the princess's death. Deciding what to do with it has
been a source of much soul-searching. The Queen might have been referring to the power base of media barons and
editors who can topple individuals from their pedestals. The reference to the "powers at work in this country about
which we have no knowledge" has often played on my mind in the intervening years and, yes, I have worried about it
Then, in demonstration after demonstration, the princess and I were given a sharp lesson in hi-tech surveillance
techniques.Then, we prised up the floorboards with screwdrivers. She was convinced there were listening devices in
the palace but we found nothing. When both of us were away from the palace, she even suspected that
listening devices had been planted in apartments 8 & 9.
Princess Diana believed she was being spied upon and bugged by "dark forces". Paul Burrell reveals he helped
Diana "sweep" Kensington Palace for electronic listening devices at the height of her concerns that she was under
surveillance. "It is a matter of routine that members of government and the royal family are monitored. She knew that,"
He added: "If there was one thing about life at KP the Princess loathed it was the inescapable feeling of constantly
being listened to or watched."
He claims that it was one of the reasons that she abandoned her Scotland Yard police protection, as she regarded
the officers as "tools of the state". He describes how she feared listening devices had been planted in her apartment
when she was away.
"Once, both of us moved all the furniture to one side in the sitting room and rolled up an Aztec-style rug, the blue
fitted carpet and its underlay. Then we prised up the floorboards with screw drivers. She was convinced there were
listening devices in the Palace. But we found nothing."
He says she was so worried about devices she even checked plug sockets, light switches and lamps. Burrell says:
"She was being cautious, not paranoic, because she was acting on sound information received from someone who
had worked for the British intelligence services; a man whose expertise, advice and friendship the Princess came to
Burrell even claims that another member of the Royal Family warned the Princess: "You need to be discreet, are
listening all the time."
The collapse of Charles and Diana's marriage left the Princess feeling " battered, bruised and abused mentally." She
claimed that for 15 years the Palace "system" nearly destroyed her.
During their divorce in the summer of 1996 the Princess felt undermined by the anti-Diana brigade. She spoke to
Burrell about being "constantly puzzled" by the attempts of Charles's friends to "destroy" her. Burrell said "We spoke
about the continuing role of Tiggy Legge-Bourke. We spoke about Camilla Parker Bowles and whether Charles really
loved her. We inevitably spoke about how the Princess felt undervalued and unappreciated."
The letter she wrote records how she spent hours analysing why her marriage failed But Burrell also says that after
the divorce Diana's relationship with Charles actually improved. She sent Valentine cards to Charles and spoke of
wanting to be "Charles's best friend." She once said "A part of me will always love Charles."
It shows, however, that the Princess died without making peace with the Queen following her comments about
Charles's unsuitability to be king in the Panorama interview. Discussing the problems of the future of the monarchy,
she wrote: "I so want the monarchy to survive and realise the changes it will take to put 'the show' on a new and
Diana also revealed that she agreed with the Queen's "disappointment" over the failure of her marriage to Prince
"Drop the land mines
campaign...accident is going