I never used to be a fan of Diana Spenser. She seemed to me to be someone who was craving for something that she couldn’t find within herself, then thought she had found it in Prince Charles, and then was destroyed by her own insecurities when she realized she hadn’t found what she was looking for and craved. She was from a very old family herself so she should have known how that system worked before she got herself tangled up in it. That is essentially what I used to think.
My views on her are somewhat different today. I see her life and surroundings through a different lens. Today I am much more sympathetic to her plight and realize there is still so much we will probably never know. Particularly about her death and about the ruling aristocracy and global elites in general.
My views and attitudes to the UK royal family have changed considerably over recent years too. In 2012, I enthusiastically travelled from New Zealand to the other side of the world to be part of the celebrations of Queen Elizabeth’s 60 years on the throne. And it was great to be part of it.
Nearly a decade later and I still have great respect for the Queen but it seems to me now that the system of monarchy, even just a ceremonial one as in the UK, is from a time long gone, especially in nations far removed from Britain, like New Zealand. If a referendum were held again in my country, I would support it becoming a Republic. That is quite a change.
Diana Spenser was part of the beginning of the end for the royal family. Her death unleashed forces never seen before. The public outpourings of grief – mostly misplaced and without real foundation but genuinely expressed none-the-less – were unprecedented. I think the public outpouring took everyone by surprise. Perhaps the public reaction was due to feelings of guilt by association in her death. For the public were most certainly involved. They had helped drive the demand for the trivial and the salacious facets of her life. Tabloids could not chase and present controversy if the public did not ask them to and go on to buy their product.
However, those aspects are for another discussion.
I came across the above short feature on Diana’s death some years ago. Even I didn’t give it much attention at the time. Now, I give this short film and its implications more attention. The questions it asks and the issues it presents nag away in my mind. (“Haven’t we seen this before….?”)
I believe it is useful to approach any question as if you are serving on a jury in a court case. Many of us will have served as a juror at least once in our lives and will appreciate what that means. It means using facts, not emotions. Being impartial. And using logic mixed in with a bit of common sense.
Using this approach easily finds huge discrepancies in all of the official narratives of the major global events in our recent lifetime. The President Kennedy assassination, and that of his brother Robert, the attacks of 9/11 and now I also believe the death of Diana Spenser can all be considered full of holes, inconsistencies. Sometimes, even impossibilities.
Take the death of Diana. She was the mother of the future King of Great Britain and Ireland, a hugely loved and admired public figure around the world and a person in whom there was probably unprecedented public interest.
And how does the British government react to the sudden, tragic and violent loss of this beloved person?
By refusing to hold an official commission of enquiry into her death – even when it was the law to do so.
The UK law says that if any British citizen dies in unusual circumstances there must be an enquiry into the death, because if the death is unusual, there could be more to it than first thought. This applies whether it is your local corner store owner or a member of parliament – surely it applies to Diana Spenser? Apparently not. Does that make any sense?
I can’t see any normal circumstances under which this attitude could make sense.
Well, except for one circumstance – that the UK government was trying to hide something. Then it makes sense.
So we don’t have to look very far to be suspicious of the cause of Diana Spenser’s death. And there are plenty more things found to be unusual, and they are featured in the short video presentation attached. They include interviews with eye witnesses who said they never saw any paparazzi near to or chasing the car as it entered the tunnel, contradicting the official narrative. This witness testimony was ignored by the French authorities. Unusual?
It also later occured to me that because the fatal impact occurred within the bounds of a tunnel, as opposed to say hitting a wall of a building out in the open, the incident and its aftermath would be “invisible” to any people passing by the area. Additionally, by sealing off both ends of the tunnel, basically anything could be happening at the accident scene and no one could see a thing. Therefore, no one can contradict what you say happened. We just have to take the official word for it. Coincidence?
And there were a large number of inconsistencies in the incident. Even if the driver actually was twice the legal limit for alcohol is that really a big deal in reality ?
We might have all driven when we shouldn’t have in our younger days due to excess blood alcohol – I know I did sometimes. And probably sometimes at double the limit. That is a highly irresponsible thing to do of course, but however, I never had any issues with car control when driving in that condition. Would a highly paid driver and security guy, working for a prestigious family have issues?
Driver Henry Paul was a professional, and in hotel CCTV footage of him bending over to do up his shoe lace shortly before driving for Dodi and Diana, he shows no signs of intoxication or imbalance as he is bending over and standing upright again, and being stable the whole time.
And then there was probably Paul’s most strange blood test result of all – the extremely high level of toxic carbon monoxide gas he allegedly had in his blood. This is highly unusual, even bizzare, not just because there isn’t any sensible way for the toxic gas to get into his blood, but if this blood result was actually genuine, then he would have hardly been able to walk or drive.
Then there was the speed of the vehicle. Authorities initially emphasised that the car was travelling at very high speed (and by a “drunk driver” remember) when it hit the wall, at over 190 kph they claimed. In fact this was not correct and it was later acknowledged the speed of the vehicle was actually between 100-110km/hr. I lived in Paris for a while and this speed is not extreme on open inner city streets, especially when the roads are not busy.
And why was the crime scene cleaned up and water blasted with bleach (bleach destroys blood molecules) so quickly – within a few hours of the accident? This was a very prominent and former member of the British royal family who was killed. Yet the accident scene was cleaned up and “opened” to public thoroughfare within a very short time. How could a thorough investigation be conducted so quickly? After opening up and cleaning, all evidence would be gone.
Doesn’t this seem unusual?
The short feature film explores these and many other aspects of the accident so I won’t go into them all here.
What strikes me on a personal level about Diana’s accident is that it shares unusual core attributes with some of the other biggest and shocking events in our recent history, such as the 1963 assassination of President John Kennedy and 9/11 in 2001.
All three share common and unusual features in the events subsequent to their occurrance, being,
a) a clear but simple public media narrative was immediately established in all three cases. The public had little time to digest complicated events or second guess them as the official narrative was quickly established in their minds. In a shocked state, the public mostly accepted this first narrative straight-away.
b) suspects and motives were identified and/or rounded up very quickly too, within hours, even though all three events were unprecedented in modern times, and two of them, 9/11 and JFK, resulted from huge lapses in national security. Wouldn’t it be great if authorities could solve all crimes in such a short time?
c) there was a clear reluctance to investigate, sometimes at all, and when all three investigations were eventually completed, sometimes years later, all three were highly controversial and all are still subject to great skepticism and complaint to this day.
Why would any of these things occur? Whether it is the death of a President, a beloved former Royal or tower block office worker, wouldn’t the authorities want to do the very best job of investigation they could possibly do? Wouldn’t they leave no stone unturned? Get onto things immediately? Present a full and clear report of what happened, regularly updated and well communicated to the shocked public? Wouldn’t authorities want to give comfort and surety to the victims, their loved ones and the general public?
Why is it in fact, that the exact opposite of that occured in all three cases? Why would that be?
Why is it that our media, when aware of the obvious and glaring deficiencies in each of these final reports do essentially nothing to challenge them?
Are we living in a world that operates seemingly the opposite way to how we think it does?
That seems to me to be the only explanation for these events.
That we actually do live in a Matrix type world. We need more Neos.