New revelations about the death of Princess Diana
I want to share a discovery that I made. Some new information on the death of Princess Diana.
This is not another wild conspiracy theory. It is relevant information and, I think, important.
Now, I’m just going to introduce it and let you decide the answers to these two questions: Is there anything substantial in this new information that I am sharing here? And, more importantly, what should be done with this information?
In the last eight months or so, there has been a court case in the UK involving a former Special Air Service soldier named Danny Nightingale, who was facing charges of illegally possessing a handgun and 338 rounds of ammunition. Police found the weapons in a rented house that Nightingale shared with another SAS serviceman known as Private N. The authorities have never named Private N for security reasons.
What is very clear in this case is that the police were acting on a tip-off. It turns out that the information they received about the firearms cache came from the wife of Private N.
But this is where it gets really interesting. The information about the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition was not the only information that the wife of soldier N told the police.
She said her husband had trusted her, ironically after taking Princess Diana’s eldest son, Prince William, to an advanced driving course in 2008. This was clearly one of the jobs done by service members of the British SAS as protection for the royal family. The face-to-face encounter that Private N had with the Prince was enough to prick his conscience to the point that he felt compelled to tell his wife what he knew about Princess Diana’s death.
During the police interview, the wife of soldier N related the information that was transmitted to her. Over the course of the conversation, she said that she told her husband how wonderful it was that the Princes, William and Harry, were doing so well and that it was a shame his mother wasn’t alive to see him. Her husband, Private N, then told her that one of her SAS colleagues had caused the collision in the Alma tunnel. She said he told her that it was done in a tunnel to guarantee a fatal outcome, that people had been monitoring Dodi and Diana and that a bright light flashed in Henri Paul’s eyes to cause the collision with the concrete pylon.
Private N told his wife that the hit was carried out by SAS soldiers on motorcycles. What’s also interesting is that this conversation happened two years before their marriage broke up.
Clearly, these claims need to be treated with great caution because they came from someone who was one of the aggrieved parties in a bitter marriage breakdown. People in that situation have been known to say and do anything to get revenge on their partner.
But what elevates her story beyond what a scorned woman could say is that her version has been corroborated by several independent witnesses. People driving in the tunnel, who saw the collision involving Princess Diana’s Mercedes, also said they saw the bright light before the crash. One of the witnesses was riding in a taxi behind the Princess’s Mercedes when the accident occurred. I was in the perfect position to see it all. He spoke of the blinding and brilliant light.
It was also corroborated by another very important witness, former MI 6 spy Richard Tomlinson. He told British investigators about a conversation he had with an MI 6 colleague, who said he showed him a document outlining a plan to assassinate Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, which closely resembled what happened in the Alma tunnel. . The plan was to attempt on Milosevic’s life when he was driving in a tunnel and to use a strobe light to blind his driver and cause a fatal accident. Tomlinson said members of the SAS had told him that the technique was called a lamp. High-density beams called Dazzler lasers light up in the eyes of a target causing a traffic accident.
Again, we must treat this information with care. It must be revealed that Tomlinson is an unreliable witness. You have changed your version of events many times in relation to other matters. But what makes his evidence compelling in relation to this was the fact that much of it was actually corroborated by British Operation Paget investigators and included in the thousand-page Operation Paget report that investigated the Alma tunnel accident. They found and interviewed the MI 6 operative who gave the information to Tomlinson. But they never name it. Unsurprisingly, what he told the British investigators was a mixture of confirmation of some points and denial of others. What is truly remarkable is that he confirmed that he wrote the position paper that spoke of a planned assassination. But the MI 6 agent denied that Milosevic was the target. In fact, he told British investigators that the newspaper was referring to another unnamed person who would be the target of murder. He also denied that the assassination attempt involved the use of a strobe light to cause a fatal collision. But clearly what he told the British investigators was confirmation that MI 6 was prepared to use the assassination as a way to solve a political problem.
But now I have received new information that moves this story quite a bit. The British Secret Service license to kill is not just the fertile imagination of Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond. It is real and it exists. It was confirmed in evidence provided by a former MI 6 chief at the London coroner’s investigation. It is called a Class 7 clearance and must be approved by the British Foreign Secretary. But the circumstances in which a government-sanctioned Class 7 murder can be carried out are not so clear cut. it all comes down to discretion and interpretation.
So if MI 6 had the power to authorize a hit, is that what really happened to the Princess, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul?
It turns out that while former MI 6 agent Richard Tomlinson briefed British Operation Paget investigators, he gave much more details to the French.
Tomlinson swore an affidavit to the French coroner Herve Stephan. Tomlinson says in the affidavit that he is sure Henri Paul was a paid British intelligence informant. It also tells of a senior MI 6 officer, Richard David Spearman, sent to Paris the month before the Alma Tunnel accident. But more importantly, Tomlinson offers more and better details about the murder scene that he discussed with his MI 6 colleague. He also names the colleague as Dr. Nicholas Bernard Frank Fishwick, whom he describes as an MI 6 officer in charge of plan Balkan operations. Tomlinson again repeats his claim that the plan referred to Slobodan Milosevic and that the plan was completely typed and taped to a yellow minute board. This small detail may seem inconsequential, but Tomlinson says it means it is a formal and responsible document.
In the affidavit, Tomlinson also lists the names of MI 6 agents who would receive the document. Tomlinson then goes on to name names to once again show the credibility of the document. was received by MI 6 head of Balkan Operations, Maurice Kendrick-Piercey, MI 6 security officer for Balkan operations John Ridde, the SAS liaison officer with MI 6 whom Tomlinson does not name, MI 6’s Eastern European Controllerate chief, Richard Fletcher; and the personal secretary of the then MI 6 chief, Alan Petty.
In his affidavit, Tomlinson says the Fishwick document gives a political justification for assassinating Milosevic and then details three possible scenarios. The third scenario suggested that Milosevic was killed by causing his personal limousine to crash. Tomlinson says in his affidavit that Fishwick proposed staging the crash in a tunnel because the proximity of the concrete close to the road would ensure the crash was violent enough to cause death or serious injury. It would also reduce the possibility of independent casual witnesses. He said Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash could be to disorient the driver using a strobe flash gun that is occasionally deployed by special forces against a helicopter pilot or terrorists. Tomlinson says MI 6 officers receive information about this during their training. In his affidavit, Tomlinson also reveals that one of the paparazzi photographers who routinely followed the Princess of Wales was a member of what he described as UKN, a small group of part-time MI 6 agents who provide various services to British intelligence. , including surveillance and surveillance. Photography.
In his affidavit, Tomlinson also says that after revealing this information to the French coroner, MI 6, the CIA and French intelligence took steps to prevent him from making further disclosures. He says French intelligence arrested him at gunpoint inside his room at a Paris hotel, breaking a rib in the process. Tomlinson says he was interrogated for 38 hours, but was never shown an arrest warrant or given any kind of justification for his arrest. His laptop and electronic planner were confiscated and turned over to MI 6, who took them back to the UK. Tomlinson says it took him six months to return his property to him. He also says that when he traveled to the United States to be interviewed by NBC, he was arrested by immigration officials as soon as the plane landed and received deportation orders. He says immigration officials told him they were acting on CIA instructions.
All of this could explain why Tomlinson seems to have trouble sticking to a particular story, but it’s a question only he can answer.
Which brings me back to my original proposal and the two questions I asked. Is there anything substantial in these revelations? And, if any, what should be done with the information?