One night in Paris.


Chris Spivey


Seems that the ponce Royals have been taking a leaf out of the Cunt Cameron’s book.

As you probably know, the Cunt Cameron used his dead son Ivan last week to exploit the government quest for internet censorship, following the suicide of another young girl who was a victim of on-line bullying.

Never mind that the shameless piss streak uses his young children time and again to further this agenda, he is far to egotistical to see that his argument is on a par with banning banks because they hound people to death once they fall foul of them… Something the corrupt wank stain would never promote.

The man needs hanging.


But that’s enough about that half witted wide mouthed frog. This article is about our deplorable, ultra rich, red neck Royals.

It seems that every time information surfaces that could potentially cause them problems, they have their errand boys at the Daily Mail run a story to portray them in a good light.

Course, you would have thought that they would have learned by now that you can’t polish a turd and make it shine. Therefore, no amount of air freshener is going to make their shit house smell nice.

So, what have we got?

Well, it would seem that following the 2nd court martial of former SAS sergeant DannyNightingale, convicted of illegally stashing a pistol and 338 bullets in his bedroom, a letter was unearthed implicating the army’s elite SAS in the murder of Princess Diana.

Nightingale – who it has been said of, was set up – is now subjected to a gagging order preventing him saying more.


So was Princess Diana murdered by a member of the SAS, as stated in the aforementioned letter?

Fuck knows. I can’t tell you the names of the people who actually committed the murder.

However, following the hundreds of hours that I have spent  researching Diana’s murder, I can name those who sanctioned, orchestrated and covered up the act.

And, I am convinced that she was assassinated by means of a technique, originally invented by the CIA in Boston, USA and perfected by the SAS in Hereford, England called the Boston Brakes.

This fact would of course, tie in with the Nightingale letter.

Obviously, this letter will be given the courtesy of a half hearted investigation before being deemed to have no relevance in Diana’s death. You can read that Daily Mail article by clicking HERE

I believe different, and can quite well imagine that the letters discovery was a major headache for those behind the murder.  I am also positive that the naive Military Police who found the letter thought that they were doing great work by turning it over to the police.

And in doing so, the contents of the letter had to be addressed.

So, in order to back up what I have just said, I am going to give you an exclusive sneak preview of my forthcoming major exposé into Diana’s murder.

This in depth look into Diana’s death is centred around the Paget Report, which I believe I rip to shreds.

However, before you read what I have to say, I should tell you a little bit about the Paget Report.

The Paget Report was the final findings of the Metropolitan Police’s estimated £8 million pound (but more likely to be £12.5 million +) investigation into Diana’s death.

Taken at face value, the Paget Report appears to address, disseminate and take apart all of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that have cropped up following Diana’s death.

However, once you begin to study the report in detail, it quickly becomes obvious that the 832 pages are at best lacking in credible explanation and are at worst, nothing more than an intentional pack of lies, distortion and disinformation.

The Operation was not conducted as an impartial investigation and neither was the subsequent report written up as so.

It is blatantly obvious to me after several mind numbingly boring repeat reads of the report that the conclusion  I.E. Diana was killed following a car accident caused by a number of factors, primarily a drunk driver, was the starting point of the investigation and all evidence presented there after had to fit that conclusion at all costs.

Little surprise then that Sir John Stevens, who was knighted by the Queen in 2000, was made a Lord following the completion of the report. The former police commissioner and high degree initiate of Freemasonry is now known as: John Arthur Stevens, Baron Stevens of Kirkwhelpington

Am I accusing Stevens of orchestrating a cover up on behalf of the Royal Family?

I most certainly am, without a shadow of a doubt.

The man, and I use the term loosely is an affront to justice and a disgrace to office.

Little wonder then that the Cunt Cameron wanted Stevens as the Conservative Candidate for London Mayor and that Gordon Brown appointed him as his Senior Advisor on International Security Issues, whilst Prime Minister – A busy task keeping abreast of those terrorist attacks that give you and I a twenty million to one chance of being killed.


Stevens also had a lucrative sideline as a £7000 a pop, features writer for the now defunct News of the World. For those oblivious to any wrong doing by our upstanding elite, he inexplicably quit his journalistic career as the phone hacking scandal widened.

For us who do not wear rose tinted glasses, his resignation was not so inexplicable.

“get on with it Spiv”.

Okay Mr Impatient.

The following is taken from my afore mentioned article:

Diana: Lamb to the slaughter

The Boston Brakes

“For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.” CIA Assassin’s Manual

“Vehicle ‘accidents’ are used as a way of assassination precisely because they are such a common cause of death. It is easy for the authorities to claim that anyone crying foul play is simply a ‘conspiracy theorist”. – David Shayler, Former MI5 Agent.

Before I explain the Boston Brakes Technique I would just like to take a minute or two to detail what still is today, the official version of events which killed Princess Diana, Her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, the car’s driver, Henri Paul and seriously injured the bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones.

At precisely 12.17 AM on August 31st 1997, the four people listed above left the Paris Ritz hotel via the back entrance on the Rue Cambon to make the 10 minute car journey back to Dodi Fayed’s Apartment for the night.

At approximately 12.30AM, Henri Paul lost control of the car as he entered the Pont de L’Alma tunnel.

In doing so, the car (a black Mercedes) collided with the tunnels 13th support column, without Henri Paul applying the cars brakes.
Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed were killed instantly. Princess Diana, who initially survived the impact, was later officially pronounced dead at 4AM the same morning. The bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones sustained horrific facial injuries in the crash, but ultimately survived.

It is said that the car’s driver, Henri Paul, who was then the Ritz Hotels, acting head of security was twice over the UK’s drink drive limit and 3 times over the French DD limit.

The official conclusion as to the cause of the accident was a combination of Henri Pauls alcohol consumption, excessive speeding to try and out run the Papparazzi – who were chasing the car on motorbikes – and a deceptive drop in the road leading into the Pont de L’Alma tunnel which caused Henri Paul to lose control of the car.

After colliding head on with the tunnels 13th concrete column while travelling at least 60MPH, the car bounced off the column, spun round, and collided with the tunnel wall on the opposite side of the carriageway.

Now, once you are in possession of all the facts, if you still believe that claptrap, you will believe anything.

So, what exactly is Boston Brakes?

Well, according to the former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, ‘Boston brakes’ is a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired ‘hit squads’.

The technique was invented by the CIA in Boston, hence the name. It has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces worldwide, as well as by private security firms.

Boston Brakes has been in use since at least the 1980’s, and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes at the critical moment.

Fiennes maintains that this method has been used at least once in England, and was undertaken by a private ‘hit squad’ known as ‘The Clinic’. The assassination in question, carried out on one Major Michael Marman near Stonehenge in 1986, was a complete success.

The following is Fiennes account of what took place:

“The Clinic had been watching Major Michael Marman, and had determined that he frequently drove along the A303 arterial road, in Wiltshire, south-west England, on personal business. While doing this, he was habitually alone, and the fact that his vehicle was a relatively flimsy Citroen 2CV meant that a crash was the perfect method to kill him. Nevertheless, the Clinic dared not tamper with Marman’s car or deploy a driver to ram him off the road, since their contractual obligation to make the death appear accidental would almost certainly come unstuck under the slightest police investigation. They therefore decided to use a proxy: an apparently random driver who would unknowingly become the Clinic’s untraceable instrument of execution, by colliding with Marman.

Through relatively simple research, they discovered a businessman whose offices were in Plymouth and London, and who regularly drove between the two along the A303 road. This was Air Marshal (ret’d) Sir Peter Horsley, former equerry to the Duke of Edinburgh and to the Queen, and ex-Commander in Chief of Britain’s atomic strike force, who now worked for an engineering firm, ML Holdings.

Study and surveillance showed that Sir Peter was due to drive from London to Plymouth for a board meeting on 11 November 1986, at a time which would mean he would pass Major Marman in the opposite direction along the length of the A303.

The Clinic then entered Horsely’s garage during the night of 10-11 November, and, over an eight-hour period, fitted a ‘parasite’ braking system in the cavities of his BMW, in such a way that it couldn’t be seen on immediate inspection. This radio-controlled system was powered by a scuba-diving cylinder of compressed air, which would allow each of the car’s brakes to be applied separately, without the control of the driver.

The next day, having practised their technique for weeks with stock cars and models, two of the Clinic members shadowed Horsely, while keeping in radio communication with a second Clinic team, shadowing Marman.

As Marman’s 2CV and Horsely’s BMW approached each other along the A303, the parasite braking system was applied, and Horsely lost control of his vehicle, which was steered across the central reservation and into Marman’s path. The ensuing collision killed Marman outright and severely injured Horsely.

Horsely was initially under suspicion of reckless driving, but fortunately had a witness who had been driving behind him, who testified that he had seen a puff of smoke emerge from the rear of Horsely’s car immediately before he lost control.

At inquest, the local coroner said the accident would remain unexplained. The more definitely so, since the Clinic’s parasite brake-system had been secretly removed after the accident while the BMW was impounded at the police garage facility. The Feather Men, who failed to prevent this assassination, ultimately learned exactly how this scenario unfolded when they captured and interrogated the Clinic’s chief assassin.

This revelation is also backed up by the stooge in question, former Equerry to the Queen, Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley, and is chillingly identical to the series of events that killed Diana.

In his autobiography, Sounds from another Room, Horsley says that he was travelling along the A303 road at around 60MPH when his car began to “react strangely”.

At this point, he remembered seeing a grey Volvo quickly closing up behind him. However, as Horsley was about to make way for it pass, his BMW swung sharply to the left, and then sharply to the right and back again.

This is nigh on identical to what happened to Diana’s Mercedes before it struck the 13th Column.

Horsley continues: 

“Out of the corner of my eye I saw the grey Volvo accelerating past me at high speed. My car had now developed a mind of its own as it swung broadside and skidded down the road. With a lurch, it hit the central reservation, mounted the grass verge separating the two lanes of the highway, and crossed over into the opposite carriageway. I had just time to see a small car approaching from the opposite direction. I hit it sideways on with tremendous force. In a split-second the driver’s horror-stricken face was visible and I heard his hoarse scream.”


Course, in order for Diana’s death car to have been deliberately crashed using the Boston brakes technique; it would also have needed to be modified.

There were in fact two opportunities to do this.

The facts surrounding both of these occasions are strange to say the least. We have already heard in Fiennes account of the Marman assassination that a car can be fitted with a ‘parasite’ braking system in around 8 hours. No doubt that the 8 hours fitting time back then, has long since been dramatically improved upon.

We are also told that to the untrained eye, the parasite braking system is virtually invisible.

However, I am of the opinion that the two occasions when it had been possible to tamper with the Mercedes; both have relevance to the accident.

Unfortunately, there is much conflicting evidence in the time line of events regarding the first occasion when the Mercedes in question, could have been tampered with. There is however, no conflict in the outcome. 

The black Mercedes-Benz S280, registration number “688 LTV 75” in which Diana was killed was stolen from outside a Paris restaurant prior to being written off in the Pont de L’Alma tunnel. Most reports indicate that the car was stolen at gunpoint.

This car theft could have happened as early as April 1997 (4 months prior to the fatal crash) or as late as two weeks before the crash depending on whose report you read. Unbelievably, nobody official or otherwise seems to agree on exactly when the theft took place.

However, it is safe to say that the car was found abandoned 4 or 5 days later.

The car had had its braking system ripped out and the only other thing missing of consequence was the EMS chip which controls the cars on-board computer. According to the author Jon King, an EMS computer chip can be bought on E-bay for around £120.

This begs the question as to why anyone would snatch, at gunpoint, a valuable luxury car just for a relatively cheap computer chip and the cars braking system. We do know that for the Boston brakes technique to work, the EMS computer chip has to be changed and a parasite braking system has to be fitted. Could this be the real motive behind the theft? […]

The second occasion when the Mercedes could have been tampered with was on the night in question, August 30th 1997.

I should point out that although the Ritz hotel does own a fleet of luxury cars, the car in question is not one of them.

The car is – or was as the case is now – in fact owned by a Mr Jean François Musa, the Co-owner of Etoile luxury car hire.

Etoile’s only client however is the Ritz hotel.

For this reason Etoile are afforded 4 parking spaces on the 1st floor of the Ritz Hotel’s underground carpark.

It is clearly agreed in the Paget Report, (the £12.5 million findings of Operation Paget, the British investigation into Diana’s death undertaken by the Metropolitan Police) that the Mercedes death car, was the only suitable vehicle available that night.

Now, while I am no detective, it is blatantly obvious to me that since the Mercedes was the only car available that night, it follows that the 4 allocated parking spaces for Etoile Limousines would have been empty.

Moreover, the death car had been used earlier that day and only returned to the Ritz that night at around 8PM. So why is it then that the chauffeur parked the car on the 3rd level of the underground carpark, instead of one of the four allocated parking spaces?

In doing so, anyone wishing to tamper with the car had a 4hr window to do so.

Could that 4 hrs have been used to finish the modification of the car; the modifications that could not have been done when it was stolen for fear of being noticed by the police when it was recovered?

Strangely enough, The Paget Report fails to address the reason behind this parking anomaly.

The Paget report (PR) then goes on to conclude that the Mercedes was unlikely to have been tampered with because it was not decided to use the car until 20 minutes before it crashed. In fact, according to the PR, Dodi Fayed only decided to return to his apartment, just off the Champs Elysees about an hour before the couple left the hotel.

Having then concluded that fact, it has to be asked why the Paparazzi were still out in force at the front of the hotel when it looked so likely that Dodi & Diana would be spending the night there.

I suppose it could be argued that the car that they had arrived in (which they had also used throughout the day) and which was owned by the Ritz was still parked outside the front of the hotel, a little way past the main entrance along with the backup vehicle, a Range Rover.

This fact could, I suppose, be taken as an indication that the couple intended to leave again.

However, if the PR were correct in saying that the decision was not made to leave for Dodi’s apartment until around 11PM, it would also make sense to assume that it was standard procedure to leave the limo & backup parked out front.

Considering the blame that the report attaches to the Paparazzi, to my way of thinking, a report costing £12.5 Million should have clarified this point.

Now, while you may not immediately grasp the relevance of this, you will do hopefully by the time I have finished elaborating.

You see, In France, chauffeurs are required by law to be licensed. However, Henri Paul, the establishment’s scapegoat did not have the required licence.

In fact, if the PR is to be believed, Henri Paul should not have been at the hotel at all, having clocked off for the night at around 7.00PM.

The following is taken directly from the Paget Report and clarifies Henri Paul’s status as an employee of the Ritz Hotel. You will note that Paul is an excellent driver, having passed an advanced driving course in 1991.

However, this did still not qualify him to act as a Chauffeur. As always, unless stated, the underlining is mine:

Franz KLEIN President of the Ritz Hotel.

French Dossier D2145-D2147 and D5136-D5143 (Spivey note: The French Dossier’s relate to the French investigation into the crash and were later made available to Operation Paget)

He told police that at the time of his death Henri Paul had been employed as the Deputy Head of Security’ at the Ritz Hotel in Paris since 1986. He was however temporarily performing the role of ‘Head of Security’ at the hotel, as this position had been vacant at the time, following the departure in June 1997 of the former Head of Security Jean Henri Hocquet.

Franz Klein has provided background information in respect of Henri Paul’s responsibilities at work. He was responsible for dealing with staff problems. ‘He also dealt with outside contacts on security issues’. He also said, ‘Chauffeuring was not part of Paul’s duties’.

Moreover, the former Head of Security Jean Henri Hocquet had this to say to Operation Paget:

Henri Paul was not a driver for any of the clients of the Ritz Hotel. Driving was not part of his job. Sometimes he drove to pick up a delivery or to transport luggage, as he did when he attended Le Bourget airport on Saturday 30 August 1997.

The PR then makes mention of Henri Pauls advanced driver course before returning to Jean Henri Hocquet testimony:

Attached to the material is a set of details which appear to be the results of the course, giving placings and numbers of points. These seem to relate to the dates 4 and 5 June 1991, indicating that this was when the course was conducted.

The name H. Paul is included in all of the sets of results. In some cases he appears to have performed well, compared with his fellows on the course, the worst performance being 19th out of 31, the best being first place.’ (Spivey note: “He appears to have performed well”. He came 1st out of  31. You can’t get any better.)

I remember that three years ago, he told me that he was going to drive a guest who was in danger of missing his plane. I forbade him from doing this, knowing that we had staff trained and paid to do it and that it was not his job. He possibly resented this slightly, but I was firm and in the right. 

What is more, if anyone had asked me to drive any vehicle, I would have refused. It was not part of my duties. M. Paul was simply nice, and as an act of friendship and because of his good nature, he could not say ‘no’ and would agree to drive a vehicle.

As far as I am aware, between my departure and 30 August 1997 no changes were made to M. Paul’s duties whereby henceforth he had to drive vehicles.

In response to your question, it is correct that Henri Paul did a driving course at Mercedes in Germany in 1991. This was at the request of M. Göedde [Paget Note: Previous Head of Security], who likes cars. 

Pairs of employees would take these courses, but not to any specific end. These courses were not relevant to M. Paul’s duties. In the event of a driver really not being available, we might then possibly have called upon a member of staff who had done the course, but that is all.

I should point out that in order to drive chauffeur hire cars, you have to be authorised.

The PR then moves on to the evidence of Jean-François Musa. Musa is the owner of Etoile Limousine, the company that owned and provided the Mercedes that Diana died in:

Interviewed by Operation Paget – Statement 200

He stated that in order to become a limousine driver in France it is not necessary to take any sort of special test/exam, but a licence is required for administrative purposes only.

This is known as a ‘Grande Remise’.

Security/protection driving courses are available in France, but the ‘Grande Remise’ licence is for chauffeuring clients for the purpose of shopping and tourism and there is no special training required for this type of driving. There is an annual technical inspection of vehicles that are used by chauffeurs. The Préfecture of Police is responsible for this.

So who decided Henri Paul should drive the death car and why when there were three licensed chauffeur drivers present in the hotel at midnight on the 30th of August 1997?

These three men being the Mercedes owner,  Jean François Musa, Philippe Dourneau – Dodi Fayed’s regular driver – and a car-jockey named as Frederic Lucard who was dispatched to bring the death car from the underground carpark and park it in the Rue Cambon at the rear of the hotel.

All three men were at an apparent loss as to why they were overlooked in favour of un-licensed Henri Paul. The following are extracts taken from witness statements, used in the PR in regards to the strange decision:

French Dossier D6074-D6079 Frédéric LUCARD Chauffeur, also responsible for parking vehicles at the Ritz Hotel.

‘Shortly before midnight on 30 August 1997, Jean-François Musa personally came to see me and told me quietly, “Right, Fred, would you please get the Mercedes 688 out of the car park and take it to the Cambon entrance, do it quietly, try to see you’re not being followed, it’s for the princess, they are going to leave on the Cambon side and Mr Paul will drive.”

I remember answering him, “And that’s all, he’s going to drive?”  I made that remark as I was surprised that it was  neither Jean-François Musa nor Philippe Dourneau who was going to drive the 688 at the Cambon side, since they had the means to get to the entrance on the Cambon side discreetly, via the hotel basement.

In so far as Philippe Dourneau was the Al Fayed family’s usual driver in Paris, and he had driven the couple that same day, I did not understand this sudden change of driver’.

He continued: ‘I got out of the vehicle, with the engine running, the driver’s door was open and I stood watching the service door. A few seconds after my arrival the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed came out followed by the bodyguard.  I then opened the rear left-hand door, the couple got in, the Princess sliding over to the right-hand rear seat.

During the same period of time, the bodyguard came round the vehicle from the back and sat in the front right-hand seat. Then Mr Paul in turn came out. He spoke to me, saying “I’m going to drive”. I told him I knew and that the car park ticket was under the sun visor. I am positive that before sitting in the vehicle Mr Paul spoke to the photographers who were present, in the rue Cambon.  I could not be absolutely precise as to his words but he said to them something like, “Don’t try to follow us; in any case you won’t catch us.” ’


Jean Musa In his evidence to Examining Magistrate Judge Devidal on 5 January 1999 – French Dossier D7015, he stated:

‘It was not I who took the decision to entrust the vehicle to Mr Paul that decision was imposed on me by the Ritz authorities. I must say that Trevor Rees Jones asked for the drivers to appear, shortly before the couple left. Philippe Dourneau and I came forward. 

Trevor told us that it was not us he wanted to see but the third driver, to be more precise the man who had driven the Range Rover in the afternoon. The man in question was Henri Paul, and we then left, my colleague and I, and we told the members of the French security, “They want Mr Paul”.

At that time we did not know for what reason they wanted to see Henri Paul.’

‘I will add that the assistant doorman/car parker who went to get the vehicle from the car park was authorized to drive that type of vehicle and could perfectly well have done so, as could Philippe Dourneau, but it was clear that the decision to take Henri Paul as the driver had been taken at Dodi Al Fayed’s level and that there was nothing further to be said.’

And in his Interview conducted by Operation Paget – Statement 200

‘I don’t know who made the plan to leave by the rue Cambon, it was all being done inside, and I was outside. I don’t think it could have been anyone except Dodi or Henri Paul. I am sure it wasn’t the bodyguard’s idea. The family always make the decisions not the bodyguards. The Al-Fayed’s are very strict; they get what they want.

 Philippe Dourneau didn’t like the idea of someone else driving Dodi as he saw it as his job; he was very disappointed.’

Interestingly enough, Musa in a further statement implies that the Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones was aware that Henri Paul wasn’t licensed to act as a chauffeur:

“I must say that Trevor Rees Jones had already come to the Ritz several times and he must have known Paul’s duties at the hotel”.

Hmmm, curious that he should say that. I will deal with the Bodyguards evidence shortly but for now, I will continue with the Hotel Staffs evidence:

François TENDILNight Duty Security Officer, Ritz Hotel. Interviewed by Operation Paget on – Statement 135 

Question: “Did you speak with anyone in the entourage regarding a new itinerary?” (Spivey note: The new itinerary being that Dodi & the Princess were leaving via the Rue Cambon with Henri Paul as the driver)

Answer:  “Yes, I spoke about it with Henri Paul. Incidentally, it was he who told me about it. The bodyguards were also in the picture.”

Question:  “Who decided to change the itinerary?”

Answer:  “In view of the very large number of very excited persons who were in front of the hotel, it was decided to change the itinerary. It was therefore either Henri Paul, or the bodyguards or all of them together who decided, with Dodi Al Fayed’s agreement, to change the itinerary. 

Without Dodi’s agreement there would have been no change.”

Thierry ROCHER, Night Duty Manager, Ritz Hotel. Interviewed by Operation Paget – Statement 137

Question: “Do you know who took the decision regarding Henri Paul as driver?”

Answer: “I do not know.”

And then in his statement provided by Harrods to Operation Paget on 17 July 2006

‘With reference to the third car [Spivey note: the death car]which was due to leave from Rue Cambon it was Kes Wingfield (Spivey note: Wingfield was the 2nd bodyguard and generally regarded as being the more senior of the two)  who addressed the two chauffeurs Philippe Dourneau and Francois Musa.

He described to them the decoy plan (Spivey Note: I will clarify the decoy plan in due course). I have no idea who had instructed Kes Wingfield as to the decoy plan because until then I believed it was confidential between myself, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul.

This conversation with the chauffeurs took place shortly after midnight.’

The decoy plan involved Philippe Dourneau and Francois Musa bringing the Ritz Limo and backup Range Rover (that had been used earlier that day to ferry the couple to and fro), around in a circle before pulling up directly in front of the hotels main doors.

This manoeuvre was supposedly in order to give the paparazzi the impression that Dodi & Diana were leaving.

Meanwhile, the couple would slip out of the hotels back entrance, located on a street named Rue Cambon and be away before the Paparazzi were aware that they had been duped.

Since Henri Paul had driven the Range Rover back up vehicle earlier that afternoon, while Philippe Dourneau had driven Diana and Dodi, one would have thought that in order for the decoy plan to be totally authentic, the same order of drivers would have applied.

The Paparazzi knew full well that Henri Paul was in the hotel as he had returned via the main entrance and spoken to them a number of times since his return.

Furthermore, that would have left Francois Musa, the owner of the Mercedes and Licensed chauffeur free to drive the couple. The PR, somewhat strangely, completely ignores this anomaly.

However, what I cannot understand is why, once having made the decision to leave the hotel, Dodi didn’t have Philippe Dourneau simply drive away the limo that the couple had used all day, and park up somewhere (the Ritz carpark for instance).

The Papparazzi had a clear view of the car, which was parked just slightly to the right of the hotels main entrance and as such they were unlikely to follow, being as they could see full well that no one else was in it.

There were also sufficient numbers of ‘Paps’ positioned in the Rue Cambon to inform the others out front at the Ritz, should that Mercedes have then pulled up to the service exit.

Moreover, even had a hand full of ‘paps’ followed the car, once having parked up, I cannot imagine the ‘paps’ spending too much time hanging around since they would be in danger of missing any potential photo opportunity back at the hotel.

Dourneau, could then have waited for Dodi to call him after which he could have then driven to the hotels rear entrance on the Rue Cambon. As it was, the Paparazzi are not stupid and as such already had people covering the back exit in the Rue Cambon. This is why so many of The Paparazzi were able to follow the death car on its departure.

I therefore find it strange that the PR didn’t investigate or even question this silly and very pointless decoy plan. I suspect the reason was that it suited the conclusion of the report to explain why an un-licensed chauffeur was allowed to drive one of the most well known women on the planet to her death.

The two bodyguards, Kes Wingfield and Trevor Rees Jones certainly do not contribute an answer to the question as to why Henri Paul ended up driving. Their evidence, as you are about to see, is at best vague and conflicting.

So much so in fact, that you could be forgiven for thinking that they too, perhaps had something to hide.

The evidence of Trevor Rees-Jones and Kieran Wingfield as set out in the Paget Report.

Both stated that Dodi Al Fayed told them face to face of the plan to use a third vehicle from the rear of the hotel and that Henri Paul would be the driver.

Trevor Rees-Jones consistently stated that Dodi Al Fayed opened the door of the Imperial Suite and told him and Kieran Wingfield about the plan.

He believed Henri Paul was present too but in his statement  to Operation Paget in 2004 he stated he could not now remember specifically if Henri Paul was there or not at the time. He was not certain about the specific time that this information was given.

In his first statement, he estimated ‘roughly half an hour before we left.’ 

The bodyguards were positioned outside the Imperial Suite from around 11.10pm.

Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales left the suite at 12.06am.

Kieran Wingfield was less consistent. In his first statement (2 September 1997) he was clear that Dodi Al Fayed told him while outside the Imperial Suite that it was his plan to use Henri Paul and that they  ‘would be leaving the hotel in the next few minutes.’

He also states that immediately before this Henri Paul had told him that ‘everything had been arranged with Dodi.’

In his interview with Judge Devidal in 1998 he stated that Henri Paul, after going upstairs to the Imperial Suite, returned to tell him there was a new plan and told him of the arrangements.

By inference this was while the bodyguards were still downstairs in the Bar Vendome. However, he continued in the interview to say that ‘five minutes later’ Dodi Al Fayed, at the door of the Imperial Suite, asked them if they were happy with the plan.

If the inference from the word ‘upstairs’ is inaccurate, then the two accounts are broadly similar. (Spivey note: How can the inference of the word ‘upstairs’ be inaccurate? Upstairs, can only mean upstairs where the couples suite was located. Neither is the PR’s clarification (as set out below) for this pitiful reasoning satisfactory. One would have thought that only the very best translators would have been used during the investigation… It just does not wash with me I’m afraid)

[Paget Note: These statements of Kieran Wingfield were written in French and then read over to him in English by a translator. Kieran Wingfield signed in agreement with the verbal translation that relies on the skill of the translator.] 

In his final statement to Operation Paget in 2005, recorded in English (Spivey note: did you clock the subtle inference there, thus instantly doing away with the contradictions in Wingfield’s evidence?), he states that the first he knew of the plan to leave from the rear of the hotel with just a driver was when Dodi Al Fayed popped his head out of the Imperial Suite about fifteen minutes before departure and told them about it.

Pausing there for a moment to clarify this evidence. Both bodyguards are saying in evidence that it was Dodi Fayed who told them of the plans for leaving the hotel with Henri Paul as the driver.

However, Kes Wingfield also says in evidence given earlier that it was Henri Paul who told him of the plan and that 5 minutes later, Dodi popped his head round the door of his hotel suite and asked if they were ok with the plan.

Trevor Rees Jones meanwhile claims that Henri Paul was “in and out” of the couple’s hotel suite, yet CCTV video evidence obtained by the Paget Report proves that Henri Paul never went into the couple’s suite at all.

In fact, the closest that he came was when he was eavesdropping at the door, trying to listen in on Dodi Fayeds and Thierry Rochers conversation.

Now, while Trevor Rees Jones can maybe cut some slack, due to the horrible head injuries that he suffered, the same cannot be said for Kes Wingfield. Why did he change his story from what he said in evidence a couple of days after the accident to a very different version the following year?

Comparison of CCTV images with the evidence given by Trevor Rees-Jones and Kieran Wingfield as detailed by the Paget Report.

Trevor Rees-Jones stated that Henri Paul had been into the Imperial Suite to see Dodi Al Fayed on a number of occasions. This was not supported by the CCTV images.

Straight away, there is a glaring contradiction in regards to the above and what Rees-Jones said in his witness statement. The underlining is, as always my own:

“Whilst we were waiting outside the suite, Henri Paul had been into the suite to see Dodi on a number of occasions.

I don’t know the content of their conversations. I think he was the only one to go in apart from possibly restaurant staff. I don’t remember any other members of the management team coming to speak to Dodi. 

Later Dodi stuck his head out of the door to tell us that they were leaving or would be leaving soon. He told me that he wanted to leave from the back of the hotel with Henri Paul driving just him and the Princess.

He told me “You and Kes stay at the front to appear that we’re leaving from there” I told him that wasn’t going to happen. I don’t know if Henri Paul took any part in deciding how the couple were going to leave the hotel.

In any event the verbal command came from Dodi. I do not remember whether Henri Paul was present when the command was given.  No other member of staff would have heard this instruction. Dodi had remained in the suite and I didn’t see him until he came out to speak to us about the arrangements for leaving the hotel. 

Now, that can hardly be said to be a slight differing from the CCTV evidence, yet the Paget Report just brushes it aside.

You need also to take into consideration the fact that in all false flag assassinations, the security is removed before hand as was the case with the assassination of JFK – to name but one of a few.

Continuing on now with the CCTV evidence:

Kieran Wingfield stated that Trevor Rees-Jones knocked at the Imperial Suite door to challenge Dodi Al Fayed on the plan. This is not supported by the CCTV images.

The CCTV showed two occasions that Dodi Al Fayed may have been at the door of the Imperial Suite speaking to those outside, just before he and the Princess of Wales emerged.

23.18: Thierry Rocher appears to push a doorbell and stands at the door of the Imperial Suite. Henri Paul, Trevor Rees-Jones and Kieran Wingfield are already outside the suite when Thierry Rocher arrives. Henri Paul walks forward and leans on a table and appears to be listening.

Thierry Rocher in his statement of 17 March 2005 (Statement 135) cannot recall this conversation but does state that he only learned the details relating to the departure at about ten past midnight.

Pausing briefly here so as to point out a contradiction on Rochers behalf. It is also important to remember that Rocher is the night duty manager of one of the most exclusive hotels in the world.

Rocher is saying in the above statement he made to Operation Paget (the Paget Report) that he cannot remember what the conversation was about that took place in the couple’s suite at around 11.20PM. He goes on to say that, he only knew the details for the couple’s departure at around 12.10AM(Approximately 7 minutes before the couple departed and 4 minutes after they left the confines of the Imperial Suite)

With that in mind, I would draw your attention to the statement I detailed earlier which Rocher gave to Operation Paget via Harrods.

“I have no idea who had instructed Kes Wingfield as to the decoy plan because until then I believed it was confidential between myself, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul. This conversation with the chauffeurs took place shortly after midnight”.

Since Rocher is talking about the ‘Decoy plan’, it follows that he knew of the departure plan long before his claim of ‘not knowing’ until around 12.10AM. The PR dismisses this glaring contradiction as being unimportant. I myself would have thought that any glaring errors or differing in a witness’s statements would be classed as being very important. But then again, perhaps that is just me.

Continuing on with what the PR claims that the CCTV cameras show:

23.18.33 Thierry Rocher departs (the couple’s hotel suite) and Henri Paul appears to speak to the bodyguards before he himself goes downstairs.

23.20 Kieran Wingfield walks towards the Imperial Suite door and returns to his seat 15 seconds later. Because the door of the suite cannot be seen it is not known who, if anyone, was at the door. The bodyguards then talk continuously until 23.26. Henri Paul is not present at this time.

Trevor Rees-Jones stated that he was informed by Dodi Al Fayed ‘roughly half an hour before we left.’ The couple left the suite at 12.06am, so Trevor Rees-Jones would have been describing events at around 11.30pm. He believed that Henri Paul was present when he was informed, but cannot be sure.

Kieran Wingfield in his first statement said that he was informed of the plan by Dodi Al Fayed at around 11.15pm, shortly after being told by Henri Paul. In his statement in 2005 he said he first knew of the plan ‘about 15 minutes before departure.’ The second description obviously puts this time later, at around 11.50pm (departure from the suite, not the hotel- Spivey).

Without audio it cannot be ascertained exactly what occurred at 23.18 and 23.20. 

The duration of the second possible conversation, 15 seconds, makes it unlikely that the bodyguards could have protested about the plan directly to Dodi Al Fayed for long if they had known about it at this point.

So, if the CCTV proves that there couldn’t have been much protesting of the plans by the bodyguards, why did Rees-Jones say the following in evidence?:

Although neither Kes nor I had a problem with Henri Paul driving, I strongly advised Dodi that we should leave from the front where the usual driver Dourneau was waiting.’

‘Dodi would not listen to my reasoning and was having none of it. I told him that if he insisted on this plan of leaving from the rear that I would also insist that I should at least travel with him so that he had some security, leaving Kes at the front of the hotel to leave with the other vehicles.

That was the compromise that I managed to get from him. As far as I was concerned until he had told me otherwise, it had been my understanding that we would all be leaving from the front of the hotel in the two vehicles. I insisted as forcefully as I could that we should not leave from the rear. At the end of the day, his original idea was just him, the Princess and the driver in one vehicle.

However, both of the bodyguards have stated in evidence that they were not happy with Dodi’s plans (only one bodyguard with no backup vehicle). So much so in fact, that they maintain that they rang Mohammed Al Fayeds control centre in London to get clarification as to their options – Spivey.

In his statement of December 2004 (Operation Paget Statement 104), Trevor Rees-Jones talked in general terms about the night, ‘I can’t remember if it was Kes or myself who telephoned London. I don’t remember informing London personally but they would have been told what was happening because that was part of the SOPs to inform them of any moves’. He cannot recall the specifics of any telephone calls that evening.

The telephone billing of Trevor Rees-Jones’ mobile telephone is no longer available.

Likewise, the Log of Calls from the bodyguards to the Control Room in Park Lane for the night of Saturday 30 August 1997 is no longer available. It has proved difficult to corroborate the content of that telephone conversation and hence one can only speculate about the other party and the content of Trevor Rees-Jones’ telephone call.

I have to say at this point, that I find it a tad convenient for all involved that Rees-Jones’s mobile phone billing is “no longer available”. That the phone logs from Mohamed Al Fayed’s London control centre are also “no longer available” increases the convenience factor to immense proportion.

Especially when you consider the following which was reported in the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Diana Inquest:

“Mr Mansfield (QC for Mohamed Al Fayed) told the court that neither Mr Fayed nor his security operations room in London had been aware of the ‘decoy’ plan”.

From that statement, the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that either the bodyguards are lying or Mr Mansfield QC is lying on behalf of Dodi Fayed’s Father.

However, I will come to the subject of Mohamed Al Fayed in due course. Mohamed Al Fayed, is not the distraught father that he would have the world believe.

Never the less, for now, I will return to the CCTV evidence.

23.41  Trevor Rees-Jones and Kieran Wingfield  leave the Imperial Suite foyer, go downstairs and exit the hotel to the front with François Tendil and Thierry Rocher.

23.44 The four men enter the hotel and Thierry Rocher and the bodyguards climb the Imperial Suite stairs. They turn right and walk along a corridor to the rear of the hotel.

23.45 They enter the service elevator at the rear of the hotel, descend, and exit into rue Cambon.

23.46  They stand outside the service door and then walk down the road past Bar Hemingway towards the Salon de Nuit before returning to the service door where they have a brief conversation.

23.47 They walk towards the Salon de Nuit area and Thierry Rocher then leads them back past the Bar Hemingway through the rear lobby.

23.49 The three men then return to the front of the hotel along the ‘Display Corridor’.

23.50 The bodyguards return to their position outside the Imperial Suite. Henri Paul joins them.

They certainly packed a lot into 9 minutes didn’t they? Remember, The Ritz Hotel is absolutely massive – Spivey. 

00.01  Trevor Rees-Jones immediately goes to the top of the stairs and beckons François Tendil and Thierry Rocher and meets them half way up the stairs.

Further down the page it says this;

00.04 Philippe Dourneau and Jean-François Musa descend the stairs. [Paget Note: The cameras do not cover the top of the staircase, so there is no CCTV coverage of the men speaking to Trevor Rees-Jones.

Trevor Rees-Jones and Kieran Wingfield walk along the first floor corridor towards the rear of the hotel then return at 00.05 to the corridor outside the Imperial Suite.

If the CCTV does not cover the top of the stairs, how do they know that Trevor Rees-Jones beckoned François Tendil and Thierry Rocher? – Spivey

00.05 Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales exit the Imperial Suite and are met by Kieran Wingfield. They remain here momentarily. Trevor Rees-Jones is at the top of the stairs.

Once again, how do they know that Rees-Jones is at the top of the stairs?

00.06 Dodi Al Fayed, the Princess of Wales, Trevor Rees-Jones and Henri Paul walk along a corridor that leads to the service lift at the rear of the hotel (This is the route reconnoitred by Trevor Rees-Jones earlier.) 

00.07 Kieran Wingfield and Thierry Rocher exit the hotel to the front. They meet with Philippe Dourneau and Jean-François Musa, the chauffeurs, in Place Vendôme.

00.08 Dodi Al Fayed, the Princess of Wales, Trevor Rees-Jones and Henri Paul exit the lift on the ground floor into the service area and wait here. Henri Paul and Trevor Rees-Jones check the rue Cambon in the following minutes and speak to Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales. (The group wait here for 12 minutes while a car is being arranged at the front of the hotel)

00.11 Henri Paul, having been passed the telephone by a security man at the rear door passes it to Trevor Rees-Jones. The call lasts just over a minute.

Trevor Rees-Jones says in his statement that he spoke to kes Wingfield on the phone. However, Wingfield doesn’t make any mention of this call in his statement and neither does the CCTV footage show him speaking on the phone at this point. Also, bear in mind that Rees-Jones says he was insistent that he should go with Dodi & Diana despite Dodi originally saying that they would travel without any bodyguards. Crucially, if Wingfield had rung Trevor, why didn’t they use their mobiles?

The Paget Report tries to clarify this anomaly in the following. The underlining is mine:

00.11 In Hall Vendôme François Tendil enters from outside and walks towards the Hall telephone, followed by Kieran Wingfield and Thierry Rocher. The telephone in the Hall is not directly visible, but from the camera at the main reception desk the three men can be seen standing in the vicinity of the phone. Thierry Rocher and François Tendil walk away, leaving Kieran Wingfield out of direct view but by the telephone.

(Trevor Rees-Jones (Statement 104) said ‘The car was called forward and I spoke to Kes on the telephone’. Kieran Wingfield does not refer specifically to this telephone call.)

00.17 The Mercedes S280 pulls up outside the hotel in rue Cambon. Henri Paul exits, followed by the Princess of Wales and Trevor Rees-Jones with Dodi Al Fayed following them. The Mercedes driven by Henri Paul leaves the Ritz Hotel.

00.17 The security guard in the service exit at the rear of the hotel can be seen on the Telephone

Who is this security guard and why was a statement not taken clarifying what this phone call was about? For all anyone knows, this strangely, un-named guard could have been calling the assassination squad to let them know that the couple had left.

Wingfield himself does say that he received a phone call at 00.20 from ‘the guard’ informing him that the couple had left. However, Wingfield was out front by 00.20 and always in view of CCTV. Yet no mention of seeing him on the phone is made in the report. Furthermore, all calls were on internal phones which contradict Wingfields claim that he received this call.

(Kieran Wingfield (French Dossier D1038) stated ‘5 minutes later I received a message on my mobile phone from the guard at the rear that the couple had left the Ritz …it was 00.20 hrs’)

Strange then that kes Wingfield says this message was on his mobile phone. How did the ‘guard’ know Wingfield’s mobile number off by heart when Henri Paul (acting head of security) relied on internal phones to speak to Wingfield?

Returning to Diana’s and Dodi’s supposed timeline having exited the lift:

00.08 Dodi Al Fayed, the Princess of Wales, Trevor Rees-Jones and Henri Paul exit the lift on the ground floor into the service area and wait here. Henri Paul and Trevor Rees-Jones check the rue Cambon in the following minutes and speak to Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales. (The group wait here for 12 minutes while a car is being arranged at the front of the hotel)

00.17 The Mercedes S280 pulls up outside the hotel in rue Cambon. Henri Paul exits, followed by the Princess of Wales and Trevor Rees-Jones with Dodi Al Fayed following them. The Mercedes driven by Henri Paul leaves the Ritz Hotel.

Now you have to ask yourself why the Princess of Wales was left waiting 12 minutes for the car to arrive. Why wasn’t the car organised before the couple left the suite?
Not that they did wait 12 minutes. By my calculation, 00.08 to 00.17 is 9 minutes. Small point’s maybe, but it shows sloppiness and inaccuracy in a twelve and a half million pound investigation.

Despite the £12.5 million pound spent on the Operation Paget investigation, the report concludes that , basically, they haven’t a clue who’s idea it was that Henri Paul should drive that night.

It does in fact appear that the Paget Report bombards the reader with contradictory evidence time and again in order to confuse the issue.

The twelve ‘experienced’ Detectives certainly fail to come up with an adequate answer as to why Henri Paul returned to the Hotel at just after 10PM or what his movements were from the time he clocked off duty at around 7PM to the time he returned.

Never the less, given the time the investigation took and the money it cost, I am sure that they can come up with the answer as to who chose the Mercedes – ‘the only one available’ – as the decoy car… Cant they?

After all, Operation Paget was supposed to have been conducted with an open mind and free from bias. Therefore, you don’t need to be Lieutenant Columbo to work out that if the Mercedes had been tampered with, the person who suggested using it, could very well be in on the conspiracy.

Does that make sense? Of course it does.

The following is what Operation Paget came up with. We will begin with Jean François Musa, the owner of the Mercedes at the time. Here is what he told Operation Paget. As always, all the underlining is mine and added for emphasis:

 ‘At around 23.40hrs I met Claude Roulet in the canopy area at the front of the hotel. He said they needed an extra car. I had no more drivers so the doorman and I looked in the cabinet to see what car keys were there’…

Straight away, it is necessary to pause in order to clarify Musa’s opening remarks. First I will draw your attention to the time Musa says this meeting took place; 11.40PM. Secondly, you need to know that Claude Roulet was the assistant to the President of the Ritz hotel. Or put another way, Roulet was the most senior member of Staff on duty that night…  

‘The keys from International are kept in the same cabinet, as are any keys for the Ritz clients’ own cars. There were none from International and only one, the Mercedes S280, from my company.  That is how the car was chosen – it was the only one available.  They wanted an S class and this was the only S class left, so there was no choice.

There were no keys from International and even if there had been, I would not have taken the decision to use an International Limousine car.

It was definitely Claude Roulet who I spoke to. It was definitely not Thierry Rocher. I’ve known Claude Roulet well for a long time and I am not mistaken; he was wearing a suit and tie.

At the time Philippe Dourneau was also certain it was Roulet, but he changed his view a few months later. It might have been pressure from the Ritz but I don’t know why.

Mr. Roulet said they didn’t need a driver, as Henri Paul would be driving. I said I would get the car but I think Mr. Roulet said I should send someone else. 

Frederic Lucard, a temporary driver for me, was working as the car jockey so I sent him to get it and instructed him to go the rue Cambon. 

I was worried about Henri Paul driving. I knew he didn’t have a ‘Grande Remise’ licence – the special licence to drive limousines – but I felt I had no choice.

There was pressure to say yes; it was impossible to say no. I don’t know what would have happened if I’d said no, but the consequences would not have been good for us as a company.

Pausing again briefly to discuss what Musa has just said. Remember, the above is a direct lift from the Paget Report and I have reproduced it exactly as it is set out in the PR, with no omissions what so ever.

With that in mind, Is it just me, or do you also find it strange that Musa volunteers the information that; “There was pressure to say yes”. Why would he say that in evidence following on from what would appear to be a routine request for another car?

I also find it strange that it is Roulet who makes the request personally to Musa, as opposed to the night duty manager Thierry Rocher. After all, according to Rocher and the CCTV evidence, he was the one whom Dodi Fayed revealed his plans to leave the hotel to return to his apartment. You may recall that this conversation took place in Dodi’s suite while Henri Paul tried to eavesdrop in on what was being said.

Could it be that Roulet was deliberately charged with asking Musa, knowing that the Mercedes was the only ‘available’ car and that Musa would also be afraid to refuse the request coming from someone of Roulet’s seniority – “There was pressure to say yes”?

After all, had Thierry Rocher made the request, Musa may very well have said no, as you will see in a moment.

However, before we continue with Musa’s evidence, I will draw your attention to the fact that originally, Dodi Fayed’s usual chauffeur Philippe Dourneau concurred with Musa in the evidence he gave to the French authorities, but subsequently – and rather conveniently – later changed his story.

If  your  firms Vice president made a request of you in which you felt pressurised to agree to the said request, would you later be confused as to whether it was the vice president or the company manager who made that request?

No, of course you wouldn’t.

With that thought in mind, lets continue with Musa’s evidence:

‘The Ritz was our only client. I would say no now as I feel I have more influence. There was not really the option to get another driver, as there wouldn’t have been time.’

[Paget Note: Jean-François Musa referred to Claude Roulet in his statements. All of the evidence points to this being a case of mistaken identity. The actions he referred to related to Thierry Rocher but Jean-François Musa is convinced it was Claude Roulet.]

I beg to differ with the Paget report on that. All the evidence and common sense for that matter, points to there being no mistake on Musa’s part what so ever.

Then there is the question of time. Musa maintains that this conversation took place at 11.40PM.

With that being the case, it gives rise to a number of questions.

1)   Why was Diana left standing around for ’12 minutes’ waiting for the car to arrive?

2)   Given that we are talking about the Princess of Wales, it is inconceivable that she and Dodi would leave their Suite unsure as to whether their car was waiting for them or if there was even a car available. Should Trevor Rees Jones not have made sure that the car was there? Surely, that is a Bodyguards’ duty.

3)   Why did the car take over half an hour to arrive when it should have taken no more than 5 minutes maximum?

4)   Why was Roulet insistent that Musa should not go and get the car – his car – personally?

However, for reasons known only to themselves, those glaring anomalies were ignored by the PR in favour of; “a case of mistaken identity”.

Despite that fact, Musa in an earlier statement had given a different story altogether, albeit he still maintained that it was Claude Roulet and not Tierry Rocher that he was dealing with:

It was after midnight that I was asked to come to the front of the hotel with Philippe Dourneau, and when I got there I saw the English bodyguards, who asked me where the third chauffeur was. I did not understand who they were talking about, but when they described him I realised that it was Monsieur Paul they were referring to.

I asked that someone go and get him and I then went out of the hotel. A few moments later, Mr Roulet came and asked me if I could provide a Mercedes S Class. I went to check what cars I still had available, and there was one left, so I said that I had one vehicle available but no chauffeur, and that I could drive it”.

The above statement was obviously given to the French authorities, since the statement where Musa puts the time at 11.40PM was the one he gave to Operation Paget. This earlier statement, if the CCTV is to be believed – and as I think I have proven, it isn’t – cannot possibly be true. According to the PR, the hotels CCTV shows the following:

00.04 Philippe Dourneau and Jean-François Musa descend the stairs. [Paget Note: The cameras do not cover the top of the staircase, so there is no CCTV coverage of the men speaking to Trevor Rees-Jones.

Since both bodyguards and Henri Paul were outside Diana’s hotel suite and Musa and Dourneau had just left them to descend the stairs on their journey to the hotel front, why did Musa say that when he got there; “I saw the English bodyguards, who asked me where the third chauffeur was. I did not understand who they were talking about, but when they described him I realised that it was Monsieur Paul they were referring to”?

The CCTV also shows that Dodi and Diana exited the suite at 12.05AM, exactly one minute after Musa and Dourneau vacated the area. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Mercedes was put forward as the car of choice.

This contradiction in evidence statements makes Musa either a liar or an incredibly bad witness. However, that does not alter the fact that he, and to a lesser extent Dourneau, insist that they were dealing with the hotels vice president when it came to selecting the car.

Meanwhile, the PR insists Musa was wrong as was Dourneau, who later saw the error of his ways and as such, promptly changed his mind and agreed with the PR that it was in fact the Manager Thierry Rocher, who was present when the Mercedes was selected as a decoy car.

Dorneau however, is not the first to change his evidence to suit the Paget Report. More on that in due course, but for now, here is what Thierry Rocher said on the matter in the original statement he gave to the French authorities:

Thierry ROCHER evidence of who got the car idea

Night Duty Manager, Ritz Hotel.

French Dossier D2134-D2136

‘I should like to make a point. With regard to the third car which was to be positioned in rue Cambon, I was present at the meeting between Dodi’s bodyguard (the survivor) and the chauffeurs (François and Philippe).

He (Kes) asked them if everything was ready with the third car. It was 00.10 hours. The chauffeurs did not know, but Mr François Moussa [TN: Suggest correct spelling is Musa], co-manager of the company Etoile Limousine, suggested taking one of his cars that was parked in the Vendôme car park.

It was a casual vehicle jockey who went to collect the car and park it in rue Cambon.

Ok, so we now have the Manager Thierry Rocher, stating that it was Musa who suggested using his Mercedes while Claude Roulet is nowhere to be seen… Someone’s lying.

Rocher then provided oral testimony, which totally contradicts his first statement. This testimony is transcribed as thus:

Question: “Between 12 midnight and 12.10 am there are a lot of discussions between you, Mr Tendil, Mr Paul and Mr Dourneau, and some movements by all of you between the hotel and the place Vendôme.  Why?”

Answer:  “Kes Windfield went out onto the porch of the hotel and asked François Musa and Philippe Dourneau if everything was ready for the third car. 

They did not understand what he was talking about. Kes then explained to them that they were going to use a decoy in the place Vendôme with the couple’s usual two cars. He then asked Mr Musa if there was another vehicle and at that moment Mr Cavalera, the night parking doorman at the Ritz, indicated that there was a third vehicle belonging to Mr Musa’s company in the Ritz basement car park. 

He then told a hotel jockey to go and find the car, giving him the keys and telling him to bring it to the rue Cambon.

Henri Paul at that moment was inthe place Vendôme and joking with the photographers. At that moment Mr Musa and Mr Dourneau asked in my presence who was going to drive the third car and Kes replied that it would be Henri Paul; he then called Henri Paul and said to him, “Henri you leave from the rue Cambon”.

Question: “Do you know who took the decision regarding Henri Paul as driver?”

Answer:  “I do not know.” 

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

So now, Thierry Rocher is saying that it wasn’t Musa’s decision to use the Mercedes, neither was it Claude Lucards.

Apparently, the death car was chosen on the suggestion of a Doorman, who apparently knows more about Etoile Limo Hire’s business than Etoiles owner François Musa.

Also bear in mind that Rocher has just said he didn’t know whose idea it was that Henri Paul should drive… Can it get any worse?

Course it can. Rocher, then tried to clarify the situation in a statement given to the PR, via Harrods of London. For those not in the know, both the Ritz hotel and Harrods are owned by Dodi Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed.

This statement read thus:

Statement provided to Operation Paget by Mr Al Fayed on 17 July 2006  

‘With reference to the third car which was to leave from Rue Cambon, it was Kes Wingfield who addressed the two chauffeurs Philippe Dourneau and Francois Musa.

He described to them the decoy plan. I have no idea who had instructed Kes Wingfield as to the decoy plan because until then I believed it was confidential between myself, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul. 

This conversation with the chauffeurs took place shortly after midnight.

In the police statement of 10 September 1997 I am quoted as saying; “The chauffeurs were not aware of it but Mr Francois Musa, co-manager of Etoile Limousine company suggested taking one of his cars which was parked in the Vendome parking lot.”

This is totally untrue and I did not say it.

It was in fact the hotel porter Mr Cavalera who suggested that he had a vehicle available, and he could arrange for that to be brought up to Rue Cambon. A car jockey was then sent to collect the vehicle.

The two chauffeurs asked Wingfield who was to drive the car from Rue Cambon. Wingfield categorically stated that it would be Henri Paul. He then instructed Francois Musa and Philippe Dourneau to prepare two cars at the front of the Ritz to act as a decoy. Henri Paul was at the front of the hotel joking with the paparazzi.

 Kes Wingfield waved to him and called him over. He said, “Henri, you are leaving by Rue Cambon”. Henri Paul did not question that instruction.’

Well, that’s cleared that up then… Not.

The fact that Rocher says of the decoy plan; “because until then I believed it was confidential between myself, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul”, suggests that he did know who selected Henri Paul as driver.

Dodi Fayed would have told him the plan during the meeting  between him and Rocher in the couples suite when Henri Paul was eavesdropping. According to the CCTV evidence, there would have been no other opportunity.

So, what does the latest candidate for the job of car selector have to say on this sorry state of affairs?

Sébastien CAVALERA Night doorman in charge of parking.

Interviewed by Operation Paget – Statement 155

‘Question: “Who informed you of their departure?”

Answer: “I could sense it because there was a group gathered in the hotel peristyle comprising Mr Philippe Dourneau, Dodi Al Fayed’s driver, Mr Thierry Rocher, Mr François Tendil, Mr François Musa the boss of Etoile Limousine, and one of Dodi Al Fayed’s two bodyguards, the one who was not in the Mercedes, as well as Mr Henri Paul I think.

All these persons were discussing in fact to know which side to have the couple leave as discreetly as possible, and I realized that the couple were going to leave when François MUSA asked me for the keys to the Mercedes, since this group of persons had agreed to get a vehicle out and park it in the rue Cambon to have the couple leave by the rear.”

Question: “Who chose the Mercedes car?”

Answer:   “I think it was François Musa as it was he who asked me for the keys to the Mercedes and giving me its registration number which I do not remember now.

 I then took the keys to the Mercedes from the case in the cupboard in the peristyle; I gave them to a car jockey to go and fetch the car from the underground car park and put it outside No. 38 rue Cambon. 

I sent the jockey as I was the only night doorman present that evening”.

Is this a joke?

So now Thierry Rocher’s claim that Cavelera suggested the Mercedes is denied by the man himself and the blame shifted back on to Musa.

But at least we now know for sure that it was Cavelera who gave the keys to Fredric Lucard and told him to take the car around to the Rue Cambon at the rear of the hotel… Or do we:

French Dossier D6074-D6079

Frédéric LUCARD Chauffeur, also responsible for parking vehicles at the Ritz Hotel.

‘Shortly before midnight on 30 August 1997, Jean-François Musa personally came to see me and told me quietly, “Right, Fred, would you please get the Mercedes 688 out of the car park and take it to the Cambon entrance, do it quietly, try to see you’re not being followed, it’s for the princess, they are going to leave on the Cambon side and Mr Paul will drive

And they wonder why people commit Hari Kari!

So what did Operation Paget do to weed out the liars, I hear you ask?

They wrote this:

[Paget Note: It would appear that Thierry Rocher is indeed mistaken about who suggested taking a car from Etoile Limousine – both Jean-François Musa and Sébastien Cavalera confirm that it was Jean-François Musa’s suggestion. Likewise, his memory that Kieran Wingfield called over to Henri Paul in front of the hotel saying ‘Henri, you are leaving by Rue Cambon’ is not supported by the CCTV images. At that time Kieran Wingfield was outside the Imperial Suite. Henri Paul returned to the first floor before Kieran Wingfield then went downstairs.] 

So there we have the answer then.

Therefore, Operation Paget cost the British Public twelve and a half million quid for them to come up with the following and loads more besides, all derived at by the same process:

Mr Nobody was responsible for choosing the Mercedes as well as selecting Henri Paul to drive it.

The decision was made by Mr Nobody at around Sometime O’clock.

Conflicting CCTV images prove this because various people are caught on film talking on phones to god knows whom.

They know this because they have decided that the evidence points to everyone falling victim to mistaken Identity.

I repeat, Twelve and a half million pounds that cost you lot, to find that out.

However, despite all the conflicting evidence, it becomes apparent – if you believe our honest detectives – that the Mercedes ‘Death Car’ was not selected to be used until sometime between 12AM and 12.10AM.

This would explain the wait that the Princess and Dodi had on the Rue Cambon.

Yet whichever way I look at it, it  still seems mighty strange that the Princess would leave her hotel suite unsure as to whether a car had been sorted or not.

Suppose the death car had not been available?

Had it not, are we meant to believe that having left the Imperial Suite, Dodi and the Princess would then have returned back there, had no car been available?

The Paget Report does not mention this important point at all… “Can’t come up with an answer to that. Fuck it, say nothing”.

It does in fact seem that the report purposely sets out the evidence in such a way as to deliberately muddy the waters.

It is also extremely strange that Rees-Jones’s mobile phone billing has gone astray while all the other major players phone records in this scenario are still ‘available’.

Could the bodyguard’s phone records have deliberately gone astray? …


 I hope to continue writing Diana: Lamb to the slaughter in the near future.

My time however, unfortunately comes at a premium.

So why would the Paget Report have been commissioned if the intention from the outset was to make the evidence fit the conclusion?

Well, according to the Daily Mails article on this new Nightingale article:

Former Met Police Commissioner Lord Stevens’s Paget investigation was launched in 2004 at the request of Michael Burgess, the Royal Coroner, who was then overseeing the future Diana inquest.

The former top policeman published his report in December 2006, rejecting the murder claims voiced by some, including Dodi’s father Mohamed al Fayed.

Lord Stevens’s investigation found that Diana was not murdered by British spies nor by the Duke of Edinburgh and she was not pregnant nor engaged to boyfriend Dodi.

Operation Paget concluded, just like the French investigation in 1999, that driver Henri Paul was drunk and driving at excessive speed.

The investigation dismissed the endless conspiracy theories sparked by the fatal accident.

Cool, Operation Paget was launched at the request of the then Royal Coroner, Michael Burgess… That has in fact, been the official MSM line ever since Operation Paget was commenced.

“Oi Spiv. If the ROYAL Coroner Burgess requested the investigation, then surely the Royal Family could not be involved in her murder”?

You would think that wouldn’t you Voice of Reason.

However, neither Burgess nor the Royal ponces had any fucking choice in the matter.

The following is also taken from Diana: Lamb to the slaughter:

Operation Paget was not set up to put an end to the conspiracy theories or even the unanswered questions surrounding Diana’s death, despite what the mainstream media would have you believe. In fact, you can bet your bottom dollar that a few arses began to pout when it became impossible not to have the investigation.

The investigation was legally necessary because: Once the inquest into the deaths got under way in the United Kingdom, it became apparent to the Coroner that allegations were being made that a crime had taken place on UK soil; namely, conspiracy to murder.

Coroners are legally obliged to refer to the police any information or evidence that comes before them concerning a suspected or actual crime.

And therein lies the answer as to the real reason the Paget Report was commissioned and why the report was nothing more than a very expensive miss mash of Lies, inaccuracies, distortions of the truth, omissions, contradictions, unnecessary repetition, speculation, misrepresentation and above all, total bollocks.

There can be little doubt that the order to murder Princess Diana was given by none other than the living dead, Duck of Edinburgh, with the full backing of  Dobby, Prince of Wales.

The operation was carried out by MI6 (with or without the help of the SAS) and over seen by Princess Diana’s hated Brother in Law, Sir Robert Fellowes.

Let the law suits begin if I’m wrong.

The following is also taken from Diana: Lambs to the slaughter and appears right after the proof I offer up that on the weekend of Princess Diana”s murder there was a massive MI5 & MI6 presence in Paris, despite this fact being constantly denied by the British government:

Now, even by MI6 standards, all those agents arriving in Paris just prior to Diana’s murder are excessive. However, events take an even darker turn on the night in question.

After the accident there were frantic cross channel phone calls between The British Embassy in Paris and Balmoral Castle in Scotland where Queen Bizzy lizzy, The Duck of Edinburgh, Prince Big Ears, Prince Little Willie, and Prince Harry H Hewitt were enjoying part of their 52 wks a year holiday.

Taking these calls at Balmoral was Sir Robin Janvrin who had set himself up in the equerry’s room. You have to have a bit of sympathy for Sir Cock Robin, having to deal with this thankless task.

Normally it would have been Cock Robin’s boss, Sir Robert Fellowes job but as luck would have it, the plumy voiced Old Etonian had taken a weekend off.

As I stated earlier, Bobby Fellowes is married to Diana’s Sister Jane. He is also one of those that Diana signalled out as hating her. She also said that he was responsible for wrecking her relationship with her sister Jane.

Now, what you have to ask yourself is, was it merely coincidence that Fellowes, had taken that weekend off to spend it on his Norfolk Estate, or is there more to it?

You see, the Daily Mail had stumbled upon some evidence that contradicts Bobby Fellowes claim that he was down in Bernard Matthews’s territory on the 30th of August 1997:

The Mail can reveal today that new eye-witnesses have emerged in the past few weeks with explosive testimony which raises profound questions about the influence of the House of Windsor and the Establishment over events surrounding the Princess’s death.

These fresh accounts include the astonishing claim that the Queen’s most senior and trusted courtier was seen in Paris, at the British Embassy, half an hour before the crash.

During this investigation, the Mail has also received confirmation that Two diplomats working for the secret intelligence service MI6 were operating at the British Embassy in Paris during the weeks before Diana’s death.

These two senior men – who have both enjoyed glittering careers – have admitted their intelligence roles to Lord Stevens, the ex-head of Scotland Yard who is heading the official inquiry into whether there was any conspiracy to murder the Princess.

The Mail has learned they include two men with extraordinary tales. The first, whom we will call Mr X, was based at the British Embassy in Paris, and formerly worked for the Foreign Office in London.

His tantalising evidence emerged only recently through a third party. If true, it will link the Royal Family to events in Paris on the weekend of the Princess’s death.

Mr X is said to be a middle-aged, English wireless operator at the Embassy. He came on duty in the early evening of August 30, expecting his night shift to be routine. From his office in the communications room, encrypted phone calls and messages were sent from the embassy via UK listening stations to Downing Street, the heads of Whitehall departments and, if necessary, senior aides of the Royal Family.

Mr X was proud of his job and is an ardent royalist. However, something unexpected happened that night which he found deeply troubling. He says that just before midnight (as Diana was preparing to leave the Ritz Hotel with Dodi) two well-spoken men burst through the door of the communications room. Described as “public school”, they brusquely ordered Mr X to leave his post and not to return until told.

Mr X kept silent about this pertinent episode until 2000 because he had signed the Official Secrets Act. But then, apparently, he named one of the men to a third party. Exploding with anger, he explained: “It was that b*****d Fellowes. He turfed me out of my own office. He was in Paris the night Diana died.”

Of course, Mr X may have been mistaken. Well-spoken Englishmen in smart suits are apt to sound and look very similar. Furthermore, Mr X only saw the two men for a few minutes. But his story, however incredible, is being actively investigated by Lord Stevens and his team.

The Mail understands that in an initial conversation with the Diana squad, Lord Fellowes has said he was enjoying a break at his Norfolk estate with his wife – Diana’s sister, Lady Jane Fellowes. He has dismissed the claim he was in Paris that weekend or any part of the night Diana died.

And of course, in denying it to Operation Paget, Lord Fellowes couldn’t possibly have lied, for he’s a jolly good Fellowes, don’t cha know.

Well, he is according to Lord Stevens, since the Paget report says there is no evidence to support Mr X’s claim.

You have to giggle at the Daily Mail’s reporting though.

Typical of the MSM, they try to steer people away from the truth. If they cannot find valid reasons to credibly do that, they have no qualms about using incredible reasons to achieve the same goal i.e. “Well-spoken Englishmen in smart suits are apt to sound and look very similar. Furthermore, Mr X only saw the two men for a few minutes”.

And reasons don’t come more incredible that those two. Bollocks do all plumy voiced men in suits look very similar. They look and sound like Twats, granted. But Twats do not look alike in facial features.

Likewise, “Mr X only saw the two men for a few minutes”. We are not talking about someone working in MacDonald’s, being asked to identify a customer for fucks sake.

Mr X said it was Robert Fellowes, because he knew who Robert Fellowes is. He didn’t even need to see him for a couple of minutes to know who he was.

You don’t work in communications in the British Embassy and vacate your post just because two men in suits, who apparently didn’t introduce themselves,  barge in to your office and tell you to “fuck orf, there’s a good chap”.

Now, do you believe that MI5 and MI6 didn’t have any surveillance on Diana that night?

Lord Stevens believes that to be true because he said so in the Paget report.

Moreover, he should know, since MI6 told him they didn’t have a higher number of agents in Paris that night…. And Spies never ever, ever, ever, ever, cross their hearts and hope to die, tell fibs.

“So, what has this to do with the Royal ponces doing a Cunt Cameron Spiv”?

Well, in the same way that our dishonourable Prime Minister has no qualms about using his sons death to further his agenda, neither have the Monsters of Windsor any qualms about using their murder victim to portray themselves in a good light.


Now, despite the British public’s warped sense of reality in which Princess Diana was anything less than perfect, she was of course a deeply flawed person.

She was after all from the same blood line as all the elite ruling families and as such, had a cruel, fucked up upbringing.

Never the less, she was well loved by the forelock tugging public, which the evil ponces in the Palace resented greatly. She was a loose cannon and a great danger to her in laws continued evil reign.

And her anti-landmine campaign cannot be crossed off of the list of reasons for her murder.

Many members of the Royal parasites have a financial interest in the continued success of the multi billion pound Landmine business – not least Princess Andrew.

The same can be said for many more high powered, members of the elite. Certainly the type that you would be wise not to fuck about with.

So, for the Royal family to put out an article which unashamedly exploits the popularity of a woman they had come to hate. Whilst using her son, the [not so] lovable royal rouge Prince Harry H Hewitt as the principle for the pantomime. Centred on a subject that appeals to peoples sense of compassion, and thus portrays the Evil Royals in a good light, which unbeknownst to the public is in reality detrimental to the greedy cunts interests, is sick, sick, sick.

Like the Cunt Cameron, there are no depths that the Royal ponces are prepared to sink to in order to continue their reign of evil.

And just like Cameron, they really have to go.

Unless of course, you don’t give a fuck about your children.


Following in his mother’s footsteps: Harry reveals his ‘irritation’ at failure to remove landmines from African countries as he takes up Diana’s cause on visit to Angola

  • Prince Harry was in Angola to see the work of The Halo Trust
  • He told the charity of his ‘irritation’ at some nation’s failure to remove mines
  • The organisation removes landmines from war-torn countries


PUBLISHED: 00:20, 18 August 2013 | UPDATED: 00:20, 18 August 2013

Prince Harry revealed his ‘irritation’ about some nations’ failure to help remove landmines from African countries, as he followed in his mother’s footsteps during a visit to Angola.

Harry has just returned from Angola where he saw mine clearance projects run by The Halo Trust, the world’s oldest and largest humanitarian landmine clearance organisation.

The 28-year-old has taken up his mother’s mantle by backing the cause which was close to her heart.

Harry has just returned from Angola where he saw mine clearance projects run by The Halo Trust
The 28-year-old has followed in his mother's footsteps by taking up the cause

Prince Harry has just returned from Angola where he followed in his mother’s footsteps by witnessing the work of the mine clearance projects run by The Halo Trust



The Halo team and Prince Harry discuss future mine clearance priorities while villagers wait for their land to be made safe againThe Halo team and Prince Harry discuss future mine clearance priorities while villagers wait for their land to be made safe again


Guy Willoughby, Halo’s chief executive, said: ‘He is irritated about the countries that supplied these landmines are not actually putting in any funds to clear them 25 years later.

‘He has got quite a bee in his bonnet about that, and that is good…


‘The minefields that his mother visited are all now shops and roads and there’s even an estate agent’s on one of them.’

He added: ‘Halo is delighted that Prince Harry has come out to Angola to support us in getting mines out of the ground, for good.

Prince Harry and HALO Director Guy Willougby next to a South African olifant tank destroyed in the Battle for Cuito Cuanavale in 1988Prince Harry and HALO Director Guy Willougby next to a South African olifant tank destroyed in the Battle for Cuito Cuanavale in 1988



‘The commitment shown by Prince Harry plays an invaluable role in helping us to raise awareness of Halo’s work and mission.

‘Wars may be over but many people are still unable to resume their normal lives, facing the threat of death or injury by landmines every day.

‘Halo is making excellent progress in Angola, with the province of Huambo now close to becoming mine free, but there are still many years of work to be done. With support from Prince Harry, Angola and the international community, Halo will continue to work towards a mine-free Angola for the benefit of the Angolan people.’

Harry's trip to Angola is part of his role as patron of the trust's 25th anniversary appealHarry’s trip to Angola is part of his role as patron of the trust’s 25th anniversary appeal

The organisation removes landmines and unexploded ordnance from war-torn countries so that some of the world’s most vulnerable people can plant crops, rebuild homes and raise families in safety.

Harry’s trip to Angola is part of his role as patron of the trust’s 25th anniversary appeal.

While there he visited demining teams across the region, touring minefields and meeting some of the key beneficiaries of Halo’s work. He concentrated his visit on the south-eastern Angolan town of Cuito Cuanavale, believed to be the most heavily mined town in Africa.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook