I want to share a discovery I made. Some new information about the death of Princess Diana.
This is not another wild conspiracy theory. It is relevant and, I think, important information.
Now, I’m just going to introduce it and let you decide the answers to these two questions: Is there anything substantive to this new information that I’m sharing here? And, more importantly, what should be done with this information?
Let’s start.
In the last eight months or so, there was a brief case in the UK involving a former Special Air Service soldier named Danny Nightingale, who was facing charges of unlawful possession of a pistol and 338 rounds of ammunition. Police found the weapons in a rented house that Nightingale shared with another SAS serviceman known as Soldier N. Soldier N was never named by authorities for security reasons.
What is very clear about this case is that the Police were acting on a tip. It turns out that the information they received about the cache of firearms came from the estranged wife of Private N.
But this is where it gets very interesting. The information about the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition was not the only information that Soldier N’s wife told the police.
She said her husband had confided in her, ironically after he had taken 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. Private N’s face-to-face encounter with the Prince was enough to give him a pang of conscience to the degree 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 recounted the information that was transmitted to her. In 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 her mother was not alive to see it. . Her husband, Private N, told her that one of his SAS colleagues had caused the collision in the Alma tunnel. She said that he told her that it was done in a tunnel to ensure a fatal outcome, that people had been monitoring Dodi and Diana, and that a bright light shone in Henri Paul’s eyes to cause the collision with the concrete pylon.
Soldier N told his wife that the hit had been carried out by SAS soldiers on motorcycles. What is also interesting is that this conversation occurred two years before the breakup of their marriage.
Clearly, these claims should be treated with a great deal of caution because they come from someone who was an aggravated party in an acrimonious marital breakup. People in that situation have been known to say and do anything to get back at their partner.
But what elevates her story beyond what a scorned woman might tell is that her version has been corroborated by several independent witnesses. People driving in the tunnel, who saw Princess Diana’s Mercedes collide, also said they saw the bright light before the crash. One of the eyewitnesses was traveling in a taxi behind the Princess’s Mercedes when the accident occurred. He was in the perfect position to see it all. He spoke of blinding and bright 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 he said showed him a document outlining a plan to assassinate Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, which closely resembled what happened in the tunnel. soul. The plan was to make an attempt on Milosevic’s life when he was driving through a tunnel and used a strobe light to blind his driver causing a fatal accident. Tomlinson said that members of the SAS had told him that the technique was called lamping. High-density beams called Dazzler lasers are projected into a target’s eyes causing a traffic accident.
Again, we must treat this information with care. Tomlinson must be revealed to be an unreliable witness. He has changed his version of events many times in relation to other matters. But what makes his evidence compelling in this regard was the fact that much of it was corroborated by the British Operation Paget investigators and included in the thousand-page Operation Paget report that investigated the accident. of the Alma tunnel. They found and interviewed the MI 6 agent who gave Tomlinson the information. But they never name it. Unsurprisingly, what he told the British investigators was a mix 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 referred to another unidentified person who was to be targeted for assassination. He also denied that the attempted murder 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’ve received new information that moves this story quite a bit. The British Secret Service’s 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 head of MI 6 at the coroner’s inquest in London. It is called a class 7 authorization and must be approved by the British Foreign Office. But the circumstances under which a government-sanctioned Class 7 murder can be carried out are less clear. it all comes down to discretion and interpretation.
So if MI 6 had the power to authorize a coup, is that really what happened to the Princess, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul?
It turns out that while former MI 6 agent Richard Tomlinson provided information to the British investigators of Operation Paget, he provided much more detail to the French.
Tomlinson made an affidavit before French coroner Herve Stephan. Tomlinson says in the affidavit that he is certain Henri Paul was a paid informant for British intelligence. He also talks about a top MI6 officer, Richard David Spearman, who was posted to Paris a month before the Alma tunnel accident. But most importantly, Tomlinson provides 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 planning the murders. operations in the Balkans. Tomlinson repeats his claim that the plan was related to Slobodan Milosevic and that the plan was completely typed and attached to a yellow minute board. This little detail may seem inconsequential, but Tomlinson says it meant it was a formal and responsible document.
In the affidavit, Tomlinson also details the names of the MI 6 agents who would receive the document. Tomlinson then goes on to name names to 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, SAS Liaison Officer with MI 6 whom Tomlinson does not name, Chief Comptroller of Eastern Europe of MI 6. , Richard Fletcher and the personal secretary of the then Head of MI 6, Alan Petty.
In his affidavit, Tomlinson says that the Fishwick document provides a political justification for assassinating Milosevic and then details three possible scenarios. The third scenario suggests that Milosevic is assassinated 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 near the road would ensure the crash would be violent enough to cause death or serious injury. it would also reduce the possibility of casual and independent witnesses. He said Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash could be to disorient the driver by using a strobe light gun that is occasionally deployed by special forces against a helicopter pilot or terrorists. Tomlinson says MI 6 officers are briefed on 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 operatives who provide various services to British intelligence. , including surveillance and photography.
In his affidavit, Tomlinson also says that after he disclosed 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 Paris hotel room, breaking one of his ribs in the process. Tomlinson says he was questioned for 38 hours, but was never shown an arrest warrant or given any kind of justification for his arrest. Her laptop and his PDA were confiscated and handed over to MI 6, who took them back to the UK. Tomlinson says it took him six months to get his property back. 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 following CIA instructions.
All of this might partly 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 there is, what should be done with the information?
