Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!

Diana Crash Was NOT An Accident
Leading barrister claims Diana's death was not an accident

Princess Diana's death was not an accident and she was right to fear for her safety, a leading barrister claimed yesterday.
The story appeared in the Daily Express but the link is strangely not working today, 9-3-9. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/124678
Eminent QC Michael Mansfield insisted that Diana's belief that she was under state surveillance was "entirely justified" ­ and that her fears for a loss of liberty came true as Britain sleepwalked into a "Big Brother" reality.
We Are All Living Princess Diana's Nightmare
BA Hons. History/Philosophy, Keele University
Hon. Fellow [University of Kent]
Hon. LLB [Hertfordshire University, Keele University, South Bank University, University of Westminster and the University of Ulster, University of Kent]
Visiting Professor of Law [University of Westminster]
Professor of Law [City University]
Bencher, Honourable Society of Gray's Inn
The barrister said the princess had a "credible and understandable basis" for her worry that she was being spied on because of the threat she posed to the Royal Family and the Establishment, particularly when she campaigned against landmines.
He also claimed there remained many unanswered questions over the events leading to her death.
Mr Mansfield said: "It was utterly reasonable for the Princess to suppose that Big Brother was looking over her shoulder, that her telephone communications were being tapped and her movements were being tracked.
"Diana's fears for her safety and her preoccupation with surveillance were thoroughly canvassed, and in my view were found to be entirely justified."
Mr Mansfield outlined his concerns about Diana's death and the loss of civil liberties in his autobiography, extracts of which were published yesterday.
The 67-year-old lawyer, who represented Harrods tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed at the inquest into the deaths of his son Dodi and the princess, said there was now CCTV on every corner, cameras tracking cars, satellites tracing mobile phones, credit and debit card records showing people's movements and databases recording medical details and welfare benefits.
In effect, he argued, we are all living Diana's nightmare.
Diana often complained she was being monitored but the authorities never took her seriously, even after the release of the "Squidgygate" tapes of her talking to her friend James Gilbey.
"Unfortunately, her predictions came to pass ­ and span the very period of our history that was the focus of George Orwell's attentions," Mr Mansfield said, referring to the novel 1984.
The liberal lawyer, who has worked on dozens of high profile cases, condemned Government plans for a centralised database monitoring every call and email.
He said: "That these surreal proposals should even be contemplated shows how far beyond Orwell's worst fears we have travelled."
In his book, Memoirs of a Radical Lawyer, published on Monday by Bloomsbury at £20, Mr Mansfield insisted that the inquest into the 1997 deaths of Diana and Dodi Fayed in a Paris underpass, which along with a police investigation cost £10million, had broken new ground.
He said: "I found it difficult simply to accept that what happened in Paris was 'just one of those tragic things'.
"Of course it might have been, but then that's what 'they' always hope we will think.
"Judging whether a hidden hand is at work is always difficult, but I prefer a healthy and inquisitive assessment of the authorised version, and for me it was mere serendipity to be approached a year after the crash and asked to represent Mohamed Al Fayed for the purposes of an inquest.
"I have always believed that whatever had caused the crash, it was not an accident. And, as it transpired, that belief was shared by the jury at the inquest."
He described how the jury blamed the crash on the drunk driver of Diana and Dodi's Mercedes, Henri Paul, who also died, and also on unidentified drivers in following vehicles ­ but not the paparazzi. He said: "On April 7 2008 the jury did not decide it was a tragic accident but returned a verdict of unlawful killing by the drivers of both the Mercedes and the following vehicles.
"The 'following vehicles' element in the verdict was an aspect that very few commentators picked up on, or bothered with, and mostly its implications were not understood.
"In so far as anyone took any notice, they thought it was merely a reference to the chasing pack of paparazzi. It wasn't: there were other vehicles clearly present but never traced and not driven by members of the paparazzi."
He told how witnesses described seeing a motorcyclist directly behind the Mercedes just before it crashed, a dark car in front of the Mercedes blocking it in and a white Fiat Uno which caught the car a glancing blow but has never been traced.
His book highlights other issues never "resolved by evidence, or reflected in the verdict". They include the fate of a box of missing personal papers belonging to Diana, the mystery driver of the white Fiat, what Henri Paul was doing during an unaccounted-for three hours before the crash and how he came to have large sums of money paid into several of his bank accounts in the three months before the crash.
Mr Mansfield also highlighted official sensitivity over Diana's desire to work as an ambassador for Tony Blair's government, campaigning against the international trade in landmines.
Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros