Princess Diana Inquiry Deserves Second Look

It's going to take a lot of concerted time, but I am convinced the Princess Diana inquiry deserves a second look. From my own very, very, basic inquiry, a lot of things were not properly and were concealed. I am convinced Diana was assassinated, and I believe most of those in the intelligence fields agree. I decided to see, for myself, if anything stands out which is not "right" in the inquiry, and the first thing I examined, from official inquiry records, showed flaws. Which says to me, that there is even more to discover.

What I discovered, comes from the witness statements and misrepresentations which were made at the inquest, to discredit witnesses. Here is one small example:

1. Two eye-witnesses, closest to the actual accident, who saw it occur, had testimonies which matched. They both saw a great white flash, larger than that of camera flash, right before impact, and they both said the paparrazi arrived AFTERWARD. This would indicate the white flash was of a greater brightness than camera number one, and would also show most of the paparrazi were not even in the tunnel at the time of flash. This confirms the strobe light flash former MI6 man Richard Tomlinson spoke of.

2. These two witnesses, a man (forget his name at the moment) and Brenda Wells, had the same testimony and they also had the closest proximity to the accident. Brenda Wells gave her statement to police and disappeared, after being told to go into hiding. No one has heard from her since, and given the number of break-ins, and murders and deaths (owner of the white fiat) since Diana's death, she may have had good reason to be afraid. Especially if it is true, as Wells' said, she was purposefully impeded from entering the tunnel, which would indicate premeditation of foul play.

3. In the official inquest documents, which I barely skimmed, and only on the part regarding the testimony and cross exam of a French man who saw the same thing Brenda Wells saw, the official report cast improper and incorrect doubt on the man's testimony. They first tried to disparage him by bringing up a 20 year old conviction for a theft which had no bearing on his testimony in this matter; it would benefit this witness, no better one way than the other. Secondly, the part that stood out to me, was the attempt to say his testimony had CHANGED and was contradictory. Not only did officials for the inquest say this, newspapers picked up on this and reported the same without doing their own independent confirmation of the facts. The official inquest said the man had made 2 separate claims recorded by french police and then by scotland yard or someone, which contradicted what his testimony was, years later, at this inquest. The man said the statements taken by others were NOT his words. No one from the inquest bothered to show the jury that this man's testimony at inquest, almost a decade after Diana's death, perfectly matched the same man's testimony as given to Reuters only days after Diana's death. His first statement to the press, was the same as he gave in person at inquest. No official from inquest brought this up. They just made it appear as though he'd given only 2 recorded statements before inquest, and these were contradictory.

The inquest's version:

1st statement as recorded by french contradicts
2nd staement as recorded by scotland yard or british authorities contradicts
3rd and oral testimony at inquest.

The discrepencies were about whether there was one motorcycle or two motorcycles in the tunnel or a bunch of paparrazzi. The inquest officials seemed most interested in forcing a story which put paparazzi at the immediate scene of crime, causing the crime. This is the whole version, which was used to support the theory that Diana's death was caused by paparrazzi. However, this is in contradiction to the most key eye-witnesses, whose stories match, that the collision occured without paparrazi, that there were only a couple of cars and one motorcycle or two (at most) in the tunnel at time of collision and that the flash which went off was tremendous and brighter than any professional camera. Their version is that the paparrazi were CLOSE, but had to catch up in the tunnel after the car stopped. Afterall, had they been as close as suggested, wouldn't there have been more accidents among THEM, from following so closely, if they WERE that close, when the car spun out of control? all the paps were in perfect control of their vehicles as the car they chased was right about them, spinning out of control? The eye witnesses say these paps were NOT even in the tunnel at time of flash and impact, but that they quickly caught up to the scene and snapped away.

So, the inquest officials purposefully left out the EVIDENCE that this french man's testimony was NOT contradictory or changed. They left out the fact that his statement, recorded by Reuters only a few days after Di's death, matched his statement at the inquest. The only statements which did NOT perfectly match, were when OTHER people were writing down the statement FOR him, which he didn't always have opportunity to read through thoroughly.

This suggests, the french man and his WIFE's (there were two of them, husband and wife) AND Brenda Wells' testimonies corroborate, that the cause of collision was not by a crowd of paps, but by a bright flash and a few cars and motorcycle with two people on it, who, after the car crashed, got out, looked inside the car, and then gave hand signals to eachother before leaving the sight of an accident.

This is sinister, and the fact that the inquest officials attempted to "forget" certain evidence suggest they were attempting to create a version they WANTED the jury to believe, and wanted to cast doubt on the correct story.

This is what I discovered from just reading ONE small section of the inquiry.

This inquiry, it appears, is full of flaws, misrepresentations, and distortions of the truth and testimonies.

Diana was assassinated and I'm not the only one who knows it. We are going to prove it, and show how the truth was purposefully concealed. Someone who has information is going to come forward, I feel it's certain.

I, for one, would like to speak with Brenda Wells.

I know there is some reason I am directed to look into this case. It is one where the information just bogs down, and it's easy to assume one statement must be true. But because of the mass of information and twisting of one thing here and there, it's difficult to go back and uncover what is true.

This is why I am good at the logics section of the LSAT. I can see, if A is on floor 3 and B and C are on floor 6, where D should be, given the only possible exits, etc. I can see when things are not lining up right.

I will proof this entire case before I am satisfied. When I go through it, and write up what my official report is, I will include footnotes and links so my own work may be checked and rechecked. I am not going to make a case against the inquiry's conclusions, without backing up myself on every single fact and bit. I believe, by the time I'm done, the evidence will point conclusively, to foul play and the impossibility of her death being caused by a mob of paparrazi. They were a screen, nothing more.

This ability to find out the truth, is, by the way, one of the reasons, certain people hate me so much. They are afraid of me and my ability to uncover the truth, for a good reason. I am relentless and I double check my conclusions and put a glaring and harsh light on their lies and illogical assumptions. The catholic church guys first hated me, then the law firm that tried to keep up with me--one woman against their entire mob, and then the medical professionals and FBI which lied...They know I am smarter and better at articulating what the truth is, than 100 of them put together. Which is what I will demonstrate in taking apart one of the most famous cases made public. I can do it, and some people actually know that I can, and if there is anything to be found, I will find it. What they hate most about me, is that I show them up, when I am a "nobody". A nobody can be used by God.
Sometimes it is the nobody that God chooses after all, to the consternation of the somebodies.