Trevor Rees-Jones and his Paris lawyer, Christian Curtil, both received threats prior to the first anniversary of the crash, in August 1998.
Trevor Rees-Jones, Dodi’s Bodyguard: 23 Jan 08: 106.10:
Burnett: Q. Was there a time after the events that we have been talking about when you were working for a sports shop in Oswestry, close to where you come from?
A. Yes, sir. That was whilst I was recovering from the accident.
Q. Did you receive some anonymous letters and telephone calls?
A. Yes, sir, I did, yes.
Q. Can you tell us how many of each, roughly, and over what period?
A. I can’t remember over what period of time it was, but there was probably two or three letters and a number of telephone calls on one day.
Q. On one day?
A. On one day only, yes.
Q. Were there telephone calls to the shop?
A. To the shop, sir, yes.
Q. And the letters to the shop as well?
A. I believe they were either to myself or through the solicitors’ office.
Q. I see. What was the nature of the anonymous communication or communications that you were getting?
A. I don’t remember the specifics of the letters. They were generally slightly threatening in nature. I didn’t take them seriously and I believe I just threw them away. The telephone calls were stating that they know who I am, they know where I work, where I live and to keep quiet. That was the sort of general nature of the telephone call.
Q. No indication of who it was who was talking to you?
A. They said “You know who we are”.
Q. Did you?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. But at all events you didn’t take it seriously?
A. No, I told them to – if they knew where I was, to come to the shop and see me.
Q. And did they?
A. No.
Trevor Rees-Jones, Dodi’s Bodyguard: 2000 Book: Jury Didn’t Hear:
On 26 August 1998 Trevor Rees-Jones “was working … when a call came in for him. A man asked for Trevor Rees-Jones, and … said ‘You keep your mouth shut.’ The man went on about being from MI6…. Seconds later he called again….“You know who we are”…. Next time he called [he said] ‘Keep your mouth shut or we’ll come round and sort you out. We’ll do you.’”1394
Trevor Rees-Jones, Dodi’s Bodyguard: 2000 Book: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Christian [Curtil]1395 had been receiving threatening calls and letters for several months. At 8.30 a.m., a week before the [crash] anniversary [in August 1998], his secretary took a call from a male voice, saying, ‘I’m a new client. I want to speak to M. Curtil.’ ‘He’ll be arriving at any moment,’ she responded. A few minutes after nine, Christian … was approaching the elevator when a tall, rather fat man in a white turban stepped out of the shadows and punched him in the face, striking a blow to the cheek that made Christian faint momentarily, and stumble off balance. The attacker said nothing, made no attempt to steal his wallet, and then vanished…. Shortly, the man called again, and Christian took his call. ‘I’ll get you another time’ was all he said.”1396
Comment: The timing of these incidents – to both Trevor Rees-Jones and Christian Curtil – appears to be significant.
Curtil was assaulted a week before the crash anniversary – so, around 24 August 1998. Two days later, Rees-Jones received threatening calls – “keep your mouth shut”.
The anniversary is a significant period – it is just the time when there would be a natural expectation of renewed media interest in the crash and fresh interviews would be sought after.
These incidents may have been a warning – or reminder – from MI6 for Rees-Jones and his lawyer not to speak out on the details of the crash.
This evidence should be viewed in the context of Trevor Rees-Jones’ loss of memory of the circumstances of the crash – that issue is addressed in Part 7.
It could be significant that at the inquest:
Hasnat Khan, Diana’s boyfriend from 1995 to 1997, described receiving threats, and said in his police statement: “I would be very naive to think that MI5 or MI6 did not have an interest in me because of my relationship with the Princess of Wales…. I never asked too many questions and Diana was careful not to tell me too much as she wanted to protect me. On the odd occasion when she did try to tell me things, I used to stop her because it was none of my business, it did not interfere with my life and I did not want to be put in a position where I knew too much.”
The evidence regarding the threats to Hasnat Khan has already been addressed in Part 21397 – also included in that volume are the fears of Simone Simmons, threats to James Hewitt and the death of Diana’s bodyguard, Barry Mannakee.
There is credible evidence from Bernard Lefort – head waiter at Le Bourgogne Bar in Paris – that there was a post-crash attempt to bribe him into altering his evidence. This occurred on 4 September 1997.
This has already been covered in Part 1, in the section on the Roulet Meeting, Chapter 2C.
Clifford Gooroovadoo: 31 Aug 97 6.00 a.m. Statement1398 read out 12 Mar 08: 102.5:
“I would point out that on the way to your [Brigade Criminelle] offices I was followed by a motorcyclist who asked me my name and address because according to him I was the main witness of this incident. I sent this journalist packing and I will inform you if I am approached in the future.”
Comment: Gooroovadoo describes this person as “a motorcyclist”, but then appears to presume he was a journalist. He doesn’t comment on how he drew that conclusion.
There have been instances during this case – see Part 1 – where possible intelligence agents have masqueraded as journalists or paparazzi.
The person who followed Gooroovadoo could have been a journalist, but he also could have been an intelligence agent.
French and US intelligence agencies provided statements that were read out at the inquest.
Joann Grube, NSA Deputy Director Policy, USA: 5 Nov 98 Letter read out 13 Mar 08: 79.20:
“This is the final response to your Freedom of Information Act request of 9th June 1998 for any and all records, including but not limited to photographs, recordings, e-mail, memos, graphs and video in connection with Lady Diana Frances Spencer…. After subtracting the foreign press articles from the original total of documents, reported to you in our 10th July 1998 letter, 1,349 documents, we processed 182 documents, for possible release. Of these 182 documents, 143 documents have been forwarded to the originating agencies for their direct response to you.
“The remaining 39 NSA originated and controlled documents responsive to your request have been reviewed by this agency as required by the Act, and have been found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with an executive order. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in that order and remain classified ‘top secret’ as provided. The documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security.”
Robert Tyrer, US Secretary of State for Defence: 13 Oct 99 Letter read out 13 Mar 08: 82.15:
“My review of the documents located by NSA and CIA in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed on behalf of Mr Al Fayed did not uncover any information pertaining to the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. The materials that I reviewed were identified through electronic searches of the NSA and CIA databases for documents containing references to Princess Diana and the other individuals mentioned in the Freedom of Information Act requests.”
Scott Muller, CIA General Counsel: 19 Nov 03 Description of Letter read out 13 Mar 08: 83.16:
“This letter referred to an independent review conducted by the CIA Inspector General…. The Inspector General concluded ‘the review of agency files yielded no information shedding any light on the automobile accident or deaths of Lady Diana and Dodi Fayed and also this office found no information that would lend credibility to the media reports’.
“Mr Muller‘s letter also referred to a CIA Directorate of Operations response stating that it’s records searches had not located ‘any cables concerning information about an alleged involvement of the British Royal Family, Government or intelligence services in the deaths of Princess Diana or Dodi Fayed‘, or any records indicating that ‘the CIA in any way might have been supportive of such a conspiracy‘. Mr Muller referred to a public statement by the CIA Office of Public Affairs, stating that ‘any allegations of CIA involvement in the death of the Princess were ludicrous and absurd’. At the end of this letter, Mr Muller noted that documents to which he had referred had been provided to Mr Al Fayed in November 2002.”
Lewis Giles, NSA Director of Policy: 20 Mar 06 Letter read out 13 Mar 08: 85.9:
“I have personally reviewed the 39 NSA originated and NSA controlled documents referenced by Joann Grube…. I can state that these documents contain no information shedding any light on the circumstances surrounding the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed in the 1997 Paris car accident. Furthermore, I can categorically confirm that NSA did not target Princess Diana nor collect any of her communications.
“The NSA documents acquired from intelligence gathering of international communications contain only short references to Princess Diana in contexts unrelated to the allegations being made by Mr Mohamed Al Fayed. The documents, however, must remain classified as their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States by revealing intelligence sources and methods.”
Mark Hodges, Senior Paget Investigator: 10 Mar 08 Statement read out 13 Mar 08: 84.20:
“In the course of the Operation Paget investigation, a formal request was made to the legal attaché at the US Embassy in London, asking that the US authorities either give Paget officers access to the documents which had previously been withheld from disclosure, or that the records be reviewed again in the light of detailed information about the allegations which Paget were investigating. For that purpose, Paget provided a summary of the conspiracy allegations to the US Embassy. The NSA chose to perform a further review of records rather than to release to Paget officers the classified documents.”
Jean-François Clair, Deputy Head of DST: 23 Jun 05 Letter read out 13 Mar 08: 76.20:
“Henri Paul, born 3rd July 1956 in Lorient, is known to our department as a former head of security at the Ritz Hotel, 15 Place Vendôme, Paris. As such, Henri Paul has been in touch with members of the DST specifically tasked with inquiries in hotel circles.”
M. Henry, Brigade Criminelle Commandant: 16 Jun 05 Verbal Statement Description read out 13 Mar 08: 78.15:
“Commandant Henry of the Brigade Criminelle informed Detective Sergeant Easton1399 that neither Henri Paul nor James Andanson1400 was known to the DGSE and that neither was an informant of that organisation nor had been employed by them. Commandant Henry said that the DGSE was unwilling to record the information in a statement as it would set a precedent, and they would require an exemption from the French Official Secrets Act. This conversation is recorded in a message.”
Coroner: Summing Up: 31 Mar 08: 75.21:
“There have been various suggestions made over the years that other countries’ intelligence agencies were involved in some way in the murder of Diana and Dodi. There really is no evidence of that. Nonetheless, for completeness, I remind you that both the French and American intelligence agencies were contacted and you heard their denials.”1401
Comment: Scott Baker refers to “suggestions … that other countries’ intelligence agencies were involved in … the murder of Diana and Dodi”. He states that “there … is no evidence of that’ and then reminds the jury: “Both the French and American intelligence agencies were contacted and you heard their denials”.
In saying this, Baker has drawn a connection between intelligence involvement in “the murder of Diana and Dodi” and the denials from the “French and American intelligence agencies”.
In other words, Baker is indicating that the French and US intelligence agencies – DST, DGSE, CIA, NSA – have denied involvement in the Paris crash.
But is that true?
This is what the agencies have said:
The results are mixed.
The CIA statement could be read as a denial of “involvement in the death of the Princess” and the NSA, the communication arm of US intelligence, has said it “did not target Princess Diana”.
The NSA may not have targeted Diana themselves, but there is a possibility – that is left open – that they carried out surveillance at the request of another organisation, such as the CIA or MI6. There is certainly a major unresolved question mark over the contents of held material the NSA has that they say must remain “classified because … disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security”.
The information coming from the French agencies – DST and DGSE – is quite different.
DST has confirmed that “Henri Paul has been in touch with members of the DST”, whilst DGSE has denied knowledge of him and James Andanson.
The French agencies have not even come close to a denial of involvement in the crash and it appears to be yet another lie on the part of Scott Baker to suggest they have.
In the final analysis, I suggest that the earlier evidence regarding MI6 – that unwanted records get destroyed and lies are told if it’s in the national interest – is likely to also apply to agencies from other countries, including the CIA and NSA. If that is the case, then the denials from those organisations become worthless.
Baker has also stated: “There really is no evidence of” overseas intelligence agency involvement in the deaths.
The question though is: How much effort did the inquest put into seeking out evidence of involvement by the CIA, NSA, DST, DGSE or Mossad?
I suggest the answer is: None.
There were no statements or cross-examinations of any officers or agents from any of those organisations who were present in Paris during the weekend of 30-31 August 1997.
So, we find Baker making a categorical closing statement to the jury – “there really is no evidence of that” – on something he appears to know nothing about.
The evidence from Part 3 has shown that the French authorities were deeply involved in the massive post-crash cover-up. There was also evidence of French prior knowledge of the Diana-Dodi visit, despite later denials.
The general evidence of the case1402 indicates that it would have been extremely difficult to have carried out the orchestrated Alma Tunnel crash without support from inside France.
If MI6 carried out the assassinations, it is likely they would have required support or cooperation from the French intelligence services, DST and DGSE.
Richard Tomlinson, Ex-MI6 Officer: 5 Apr 09 Interview: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“It’s perfectly normal for different intelligence services to work together in close cooperation…. When I was in MI6 I worked quite often with the French intelligence service. I speak French, so I would go off to Paris and talk to the French intelligence services and then we would carry out a joint … operation….
“There was a protocol that if you were carrying out an operation on a friendly country’s soil, you always approach them first and ask for permission, and they are obviously allowed to ask ‘why are you doing this?’ and they obviously want all the intelligence that might come from it….
“There’s a very friendly relationship between all the western intelligence services, some more so than others…. [For example] the New Zealand intelligence service … is almost regarded as part of the British intelligence service. Most of the Europeans now, especially the northern Europeans, are very, very strongly allied [with the UK]. The French have obviously a much more powerful security apparatus [compared to New Zealand] and they’re an ally but … they’re not in the same closeness of alliance as … New Zealand….
“[The French intelligence] are probably not as powerful as the British, but they’re more powerful than most of the other European intelligence services…. Clearly the Americans are just head and shoulders above anyone, with their huge budgets and their huge numbers of personnel…. If you were to look at the European countries, Britain probably has the most global reach…. Germany is quite a well-funded and powerful intelligence service and then the French as well … are a bit like Britain and have a certain amount of commonwealth around the world…. They’re … not quite as powerful probably as the British, but close.”
Question: Would the [intelligence] services of one country ever ask another country to look into the activities of the first country’s citizens…?
Answer: Yes, absolutely…. For an example, when I was living in France after I had been released from prison and MI6 were wanting to put me under surveillance, they got the French to put me under surveillance and I was under surveillance by the French…. When I was in Switzerland the British asked the Swiss to put me under surveillance…. It’s perfectly normal to ask another country.”14031404
Richard Tomlinson, Ex-MI6 Officer: 13 Feb 08: 60.5:
Mansfield: Q. On Friday 31st July, do you see, 1998, shortly before – well, your appointment [with Stéphan] was in September, I believe – you were arrested by the DST – what were the DST?
A. That is the Direction Surveillance Territoire, which is – I would guess the nearest equivalent in Britain is the Special Branch.
Q. – in your Paris hotel room…. What were they asking about, can you remember?
A. No. Principally they wanted to take my computers off me and my PDA, the Psion organiser….
Q. Where did these computers end up, do you know?
A. They took them back to the UK.
Q. They took them back to UK. In this you indicate: “Despite my repeated requests, I was never given any justification for the arrest, was not shown the arrest warrant. Even though I was released without charge, the DST confiscated from me my laptop computer and my organiser. They illegally gave these to MI6 who took them back to the UK. They were not returned for six months….” At that time, were you interviewed by anyone from MI6 in Paris while you were detained?
A. Not by MI6, but by Special Branch officers, police Special Branch officers, who were in Paris, and they interviewed me…. It was them that had requested that the French arrest me, so it was the Special Branch officers who were questioning me via the French officers because the Special Branch could not make questions to me directly on French territory. So the Special Branch officers would make questions to the French officers and then the French officers would make the questions to me. So both French and British officers were present at the interviews.
At 65.16: Q. [In January 1999] you booked a chalet in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for ten days snow-boarding and so forth. You picked up your parents from Geneva Airport in a hire car on the evening of January 8th and set off for the French border. At the French Customs post, your car was stopped and you were detained. Four officers from the DST held you for four hours. I am going to pause there. Did they interview you?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it about this time?
A. I cannot remember. They wanted to know what I was doing going to France. They did not say anything specific. It was more like – oh yes, they asked is it true that I work for MI6, so I answered truthfully, and then they asked me what did I do at MI6 and they asked me a lot of questions about my activities in MI6, but I think that was more for their personal curiosity than anything. They asked me some really quite banal questions about guns and weapons. But I think that the impression I had was that they were – the objective of stopping me was to stop me going to France, that they were buying time for someone else to come down from – that is right, because we had to wait for another officer to come down, a more senior officer. So when the more senior officer came down, I was served with papers telling me to get out of the country and not come back again – in fact there was no time limit. I was just told I would have to leave France.
Q…. Was it your belief at the time that this resulted from MI6 activity or advice to the DST?
A. I am absolutely sure even now that that is the only mechanism by which that would happen because I have never broken any law in France, and there is no reason why the French authorities would have ever intervened in that nature if they had not been asked specifically by a foreign intelligence service, and the only foreign intelligence service that could be is MI6.
Coroner: But does it surprise you, Mr Tomlinson, that a foreign country, France or America, should be nervous about your coming to their country, bearing in mind that you were convicted under the Official Secrets Act in this country?
A. It does strike me as strange because why would France be worried about me breaking the Official Secrets Act of Britain? I would have no access to any French secrets. So that does not at all translate into any possibility of me breaking a French law because, even if I had the position to do so, which I do not, I do not know any French secrets, so it is of no interest at all to France to – in fact I have certainly been told by the French authorities on many occasions that they don’t give a damn about me breaking the Official Secrets Act in Britain. It is an irrelevance to them. So it is quite clear that both the French and the Americans were – and indeed the Australians, because I have been refused visas to visit Australia on numerous occasions too – have all been acting at the request or suggestion of Britain. My belief is that that request or suggestion would have come from MI6 because that is the only organisation in Britain which would have been motivated to do that.
Comment: Earlier evidence1405 revealed that ex-MI5 officer, David Shayler, was also arrested by the DST on behalf of the British authorities.1406
Mr 6 aka Richard Spearman, MI6 Officer. British Embassy, Paris: 29 Feb 08: 62.3:
A. I know there has been some mention of the role of the station in Paris, and our primary role, if you like, as I saw it, was to work closely with our French colleagues in liaison and I think others have spoken to that a bit. Quite clearly, if you are working very closely with your liaison colleagues, you use them and work with them on things, and certainly I am aware of other examples in which we would have asked – we would have asked for assistance and we would not need to have our own, as it were, recourse to our own sources because we would be working with our French colleagues jointly.
Mansfield: Q. The French colleagues are DGSE; yes?
A. We worked with the whole range of French services.
Q. It includes DGSE?
A. It included DGSE, yes.
Comment: The evidence reveals a working relationship between MI6 and French intelligence:
Given that the assassinations of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed occurred on French soil, I suggest that it is common sense that if MI6 were involved they would have been coordinating the action with the assistance of French intelligence.
The evidence indicates that there is generally a close relationship between MI6 and the CIA.
Richard Tomlinson, Ex-MI6 Officer: 2001 Book: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“MI6 were always warm and cordial with CIA liaison because the Americans had such fabulous resources.”1408
Comment: In his extensive book on MI6 special operations, Stephen Dorril describes a long history – despite ups and downs – of close cooperation between MI6 and CIA:
The question becomes: Would the CIA have involved itself in the operation to assassinate Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed?
Daily Mail: 19 Aug 97 Article: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Princess Diana scored her biggest political victory last night when President Clinton said he would support an international ban on landmines by the end of the year. As recently as three months ago, Mr Clinton said it would not be possible to stop the use of landmines until the next century. Since then the anti-mine publicity largely generated by Princess Diana … has persuaded the White House to change course.
“White House insiders say Diana’s campaign has struck a chord with First Lady Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea. ‘They have made the President very much aware of Diana’s work,’ said one aide. He insisted however that in the end Mr Clinton made up his own mind without being ‘overly influenced’ by his wife and daughter.
“Jerry White, cofounder of the Washington-based Land Mine Survivors Network, said last night: ‘Princess Di can be very proud. She was central to pushing Clinton off the fence.’ Mr Clinton will send a senior team of officials to Geneva this week to negotiate America’s role in what has become known as the ‘Canadian Initiative‘ to ban mines by the end of this year.”1417
CNN: 15 Sep 97 Report: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“US government sources told CNN the Pentagon became resigned to the possibility of signing the [anti-landmine] treaty when Diana became an active supporter of a ban.”1418
CNN: 17 Sep 97 Report: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“President Bill Clinton said the United States would not sign the [anti-landmine] treaty. ‘There is a line I simply cannot cross’ Clinton said.”1419
Mail on Sunday: 30 Nov 97 Article: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“President Bill Clinton has finally decided not to sign a treaty banning landmines.
“Military leaders from 100 countries gather in Canada on Wednesday to sign the treaty which gained enormous momentum following the death of Princess Diana who campaigned vigorously for its acceptance.
“Up to the last minute there has been intense diplomatic and human rights pressure on Mr Clinton to sign – even his wife Hillary is in favour – but he shares the Pentagon‘s view that the US still needs landmines. The US has a million antipersonnel devices buried in South Korea and refuses to clear them in case there is an invasion from the North.
“The Ottawa treaty requires nations to destroy all stockpiles within four years and all minefields in a decade. Mr Clinton says the US has destroyed 1.5 million mines and plans to destroy a further 1.5 million more than any other nation. He is also increasing the American de-mining budget by 25 per cent. He said: ‘It’s a question of how the treaty is worded and the unwillingness of some people to entertain change in the wording.’”1420
Jon King, Investigative Writer: 2001 Book: Jury Didn’t Hear:
On Saturday 23 August 1997, 8 days before the crash, Jon King met with an anonymous US Special Forces veteran and CIA contract agent, who told him: “[This information] came into my possession some short while ago, and it concerns a plot to eliminate one of the most prominent figures on the world stage, someone like Martin Luther King and John Lennon – someone with the ability to undermine the social and political control mechanisms currently in place…. I do not know precisely where or when the hit will take place. I do not know the precise schedule…. It has been planned for a good many months and it will take place within days from now … very soon…. This one will be bigger than Kennedy … even my own sources are extremely nervous about this one…. This person has become a loose cannon on a world stage…. This person has upset an awful lot of very influential, very powerful people…..”1421 Jon King stated: “I now suspect that [my contact] was … perhaps part of a more liberal faction within British and US intelligence who evidently opposed the assassination, but were powerless to prevent it. And who thus decided to spotlight it instead.”1422
1423
The above list has been reproduced from William Blum’s 1995 book Killing Hope.
Comment: The above assassination list put together by highly-respected US investigative journalist, William Blum, reveals the huge involvement by the CIA around the world in assassination plots – right from the beginning of its operations in the late 1940s.
So, clearly the CIA had the resources to assist with the assassination of Princess Diana – they may even be the experts in the assassination business.
Richard Tomlinson also said – referring to the early 1990s period – “the Americans had such fabulous resources”.
There are several points that indicate the US intelligence organisation, the CIA, could have been involved in the Paris assassinations:
According to Tomlinson the CIA was the most resourced intelligence organisation in the western world: “Clearly the Americans are just head and shoulders above anyone, with their huge budgets and their huge numbers of personnel”.
Stephen Dorril stated – in connection with the 1991 Gulf war – “the episode served only to emphasise the gulf between the capabilities of the [UK and US] intelligence services and the subservience of MI6 to its Atlantic partner [CIA]”.
There is a possibility that MI6 would have sought out CIA resources in carrying out the Paris assassinations.
Tomlinson’s description of “warm and cordial” contact between MI6 and the CIA liaison in the 1990s is supported by Dorril’s accounts of cooperation throughout the life of the CIA, from 1950 onwards.1424
Earlier evidence pointed to the 1996 plot to assassinate Saddam Hussein being a joint CIA/MI6 operation – this occurred the year before the assassination of Princess Diana.
It is the CIA that published, in the 1950s, an assassination manual called “A Study of Assassination”.1425 The manual reads: “A further [assassination] type … is caused by the need to conceal the fact that the subject was actually the victim of assassination, rather than an accident or natural causes. If such concealment is desirable the operation will be called ‘secret’…. Successful secret assassinations are not recorded as assassination at all.”
This is what occurred in Paris in 1997 – this “secret” assassination of Diana has been passed off by two police investigations1426 as an “accident”.
Under “Planning”, the document reads: “All planning must be mental; no papers should ever contain evidence of the operation.”
Operation Paget reported that they found no documentary evidence of MI6 involvement in the Paris crash – see earlier.
The manual: “For secret assassination … the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.”
As has been stated in these volumes, when a person dies by car accident – no matter who they are – it is generally assumed to be an accident.
Under Techniques: “Falls into the sea or swiftly flowing rivers may suffice if the subject cannot swim. It will be more reliable if the assassin can arrange to attempt rescue, as he can thus be sure of the subject’s death and at the same time establish a workable alibi.”
Although this is not referring to death by a car crash – and car accidents were not recommended1427 – there is a striking similarity to the death of Diana. The SAMU ambulance team, who were the very people expected to assist in saving Diana, actually ensured that the assassination was successfully executed – see Part 2.
The general evidence indicates that both the CIA and MI6 – see earlier – are very much in the assassination business.
Page 4 of the 19 page undated CIA assassination manual, entitled “A Study of Assassination”. A copy of this document was “found” in the training files for CIA staff involved in the 1954 Guatemala coup. There are similarities between the procedures outlined in this document and the methods used in the conduct of the 1997 assassination of Princess Diana – see point 3 above. The full document, which was declassified and released on 23 May 1997, can be viewed at the US National Security Archive – George Washington University: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html
On 17 September 1997, just 17 days after the death of Diana, the treaty was agreed by 90 nations in Oslo, Norway1429 – but the US was not one of them. Instead US President Bill Clinton said: “There is a line I simply cannot cross”.
Why was Clinton apparently willing to sign the anti-landmine treaty while Diana was alive, but not willing to, just 2½ weeks after she had died?
Diana’s anti-landmine campaign appears to be a very real motive for the US – CIA – to have become involved in her assassination.
Given that information on intelligence operations tends to flow on a “need to know” basis – see earlier – it seems likely that prior knowledge equates with involvement. In other words, if the CIA knew in advance about the assassination of Princess Diana, then it is also likely they were involved in some way.