Prince Charles Implicated in Murder of Princess Diana
Logic dictates Princess Di was deliberately frightened into writing the incriminating letter before her death, but science suggests that she did not write the letter at all

Copyright Joe Vialls, 9 January 2004 
            During the evening of 29 January 1999, five hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various assorted camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London. Prince Charles was finally "coming out" with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London media had been primed in advance about the photo opportunity.
            As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs predictably started popping all over the place. But then the unthinkable happened. From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a powerful Pulsed-Strobe "Less Than Lethal" optical weapon directly at the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below, the intense distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then turn pale.
            Though taken from a slightly different angle, the remarkable photo shown above on the right was exposed at the exact second the Pulsed-Strobe LTL fired. The PS-LTL is a narrow-beam weapon, and the photo clearly shows the intense blue-white glare directly on Camilla's right eye, and on the right side of Prince Charles' nose. Because the Prince had his face turned away from the weapon at the instant it fired, he escaped its neural effects.
            No doubt there will be photographic "experts" out there who will claim this was merely a media flash gun. Any and all such claims can easily be disproved. The media pack was completely contained behind a barrier more than sixty feet away from the London Ritz Hotel, at which range no media flash gun ever invented can generate such an intense [and narrow] blue-white beam or pulse.
            Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon used, was almost identical to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey. Only three weeks after that fatal crash, I wrote to Mohammed Al-Fayed about Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapons. This letter was sent to London by registered mail on 22 September 1997, long before any "official" reasons or misleading suggestions about the crash were published by the media:-
            "When this LTL weapon fires, it pulses high-intensity brilliant white light at brain frequencies, inducing complete neural confusion for between two and five seconds. Line-of-sight exposure is overwhelming and renders the target completely incapable of meaningful brain function. Exposure at oblique angles causes moderate to severe mental confusion.
            "If this LTL system was deployed at the tunnel entrance in order to trigger a lethal event, the two-ton mass of the Mercedes colliding with a solid concrete wall at sixty mph, would have ensured lethality due to the car's inertia, which could be accurately calculated in advance.
            "Although pulsed-strobe LTL by its very nature leaves little hard evidence of its use, there are indicators which might be useful in determining whether or not it was deployed at the Paris tunnel." EQ..
            Before going on to examine who might have the motive and means to orchestrate the event outside the London Ritz, it might be instructive to examine how the media pack reacted to this extraordinary optical weapon at the time. The BBC, obliged to transmit quite dangerous television footage of events at the Ritz, tried to blame it all on an over-abundance of flash guns:
            "Some had been waiting for many hours to catch a glimpse of the couple. Many were tourists, and others had merely stopped to see what was going on as they made their way home from pubs and restaurants. Such was the ferocity of the flash guns, the British Epilepsy Association urged broadcasters not to transmit more than five seconds of the strobe-like effects, fearing that it would spark photosensitive seizures in some sufferers."
            In fact the "strobe-like effects" had already done considerably more damage than that. At one London TV station two editors became severely confused, and at another station, one editor became totally disorientated and collapsed across the control console. None of these personnel, or other who suffered lesser effects, had any history of epilepsy.
            Working rapidly behind the scenes, The Independent Television Commission in London took a much harder line than the BBC, swiftly circulating an urgent directive to all TV networks. The ITC warned that "the news footage [taken outside the London Ritz] appeared significantly to breach the ITC's guidelines on the use of flashing images," and called for subsequent broadcasts "to fall in line with the Commission's guidance notes."
            In accordance with this directive, later transmissions had the footage slowed down, a fact reported openly by television networks across the world including Australia's ABC and SBS. But despite the confusion, and the fact this was the first and only documented occasion on which television footage worldwide had to be slowed down to avoid neural damage, not one media outlet anywhere reported on the real reasons for this unique phenomena.
            It was literally the scoop of the century. For the first time in history people were swooning all over the floor, and collapsing across television consoles, to the point where transmission speeds had to be altered to limit further physical and mental damage. At best George Orwell had come to town, and at worst the government's "Mind Controllers" had just turned up for work. It was a giant of a story begging to be reported to the viewers, but no one said a thing. Are all media personnel stupid, or were they simply told to keep their mouths shut that day?
            Possible motives for this deliberate event must also include the possible motives behind the deaths of Dodi Al-Fayed, and Diana, Princess of Wales. The links between Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Camilla Parker-Bowles and Dodi Al-Fayed overlap in several complex ways, to the point where any diligent investigator or analyst would ignore them at his peril.
           The hotel name itself points to another or parallel link, which is unlikely to be mere coincidence. The Ritz Hotel in Paris is owned by Mohammed Al-Fayed, while the Ritz Hotel in London is jointly owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, affectionately known in London circles as "The Reclusive Twins" because they shun limelight and controversy.
            So far as is known, both Sir Barclays have always left the day-to-day running of the London Ritz entirely to its own management team, so we can confidently exclude any rivalry or conflict between the hotel owners themselves. What, then? The explanation is long and may get a little boring in places, but stay with me people, stay with me. The means justify the end of this story, and the end of this story is frightening.
            Throughout history, a large number of powerful men [and pretenders who seek to be powerful men] have been inexorably drawn towards symbolism and anniversary dates. You see evidence of this all around you in everyday life. American Independence Day is celebrated on 4 July each year, which serves the dual role of symbolism [Independence] and a specific day on which to celebrate it. On the other side of the Atlantic we have the Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain.
            Princess Elizabeth's father, King George VI, died on 6th February 1952. As required by tradition, the new monarch acceded to the throne instantly. At no time is Britain left without a monarch. It is for this reason that the monarch's flag, The Royal Standard, can never fly at half mast even though the public expected the 'Standard' to be at half mast at the time of Princess Diana's death.
            Though the Queen's Golden Jubilee is officially celebrated in June 2002, it was actually on 6 February 2002 that Elizabeth the Second completed exactly fifty years as Monarch. There are other events and dates most people forgot long ago, which can still be used subversively for more discreet commemorative purposes.
            Fine so far. The owners of the two Ritz Hotels are not involved, but we still have a highly charged and very symbolic situation. The last time any of us saw Prince Charles' estranged wife Diana alive, is when she walked out of the back door of the Ritz Hotel in Paris with Dodi Al-Fayed. The first time we "officially" saw Prince Charles' mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles, is when she walked out of the front door of the Ritz Hotel in London.
            So what does it all mean, and who was really pulling the symbolic strings in this strange subliminal tableaux? To answer this we need to back up a few years to 1992-3, when suddenly and without apparent reason, a person or persons unknown started "bugging" the telephones of Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Rumors circulated by the media insinuated that Prince Charles started it all, but why on earth would he bother?
            Nowadays we all know that back in 1993 and much earlier, Prince Charles had both Protestant wife and Catholic mistress, i.e. the best of both worlds, and would most certainly not upset the apple cart himself. Princess Diana also had no motive, nor did Camilla Parker-Bowles.
            Whoever ordered the bugging benefited hugely in terms of undermining the credibility of the Royal Family, and eventually the London Sunday Mirror newspaper pointed the finger thus: "The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) are holding a 1,056 page dossier made by bugging Princess Diana's phones and eavesdropping on her conversations. The CIA had mounted a surveillance operation on Diana at the request of British Intelligence Service MI6".
            It would be a serious error of judgement to assume that MI6, home of the fictional James Bond, is actually controlled by the British Government. It would be an equally serious error of judgement to assume that MI6 goes out of its way to protect members of the Royal Family, because it does not do so. Preserving national security and protecting the Royal Family are tasks handled jointly by MI5 and The Metropolitan Police Service.
            More properly known by its correct title of the "Secret Intelligence Service" (SIS), MI6 was long ago penetrated by both the American Central Intelligence Agency and the Israeli Mossad. For at least the last two decades MI6 has danced to the tune of the CIA, which unfortunately over the same period of history has itself been subordinate to Mossad interests. Therefore any international agenda followed by MI6 and the CIA, has been set by the Mossad. "Why oh why", I hear you ask, "would the Mossad be interested in harming Prince Charles, Princess Diana or Camilla Parker-Bowles?"
             Once again we have to delve back through the history books for the answer, and please note here this is a serious investigation, not an "anti-Semitic" witch hunt as many Jews are sure to claim. It is documented historical fact that for many centuries, Jewish financiers effectively controlled various British Kings and Queens, by funding wars and many other ventures that the occasionally extravagant British monarchs desired.
            True, every now and then a King might, and in fact did, banish them all from Britain, but overall the Jews were the undisputed winners.  It was not until the early 20th Century that disenchanted British bureaucrats finally knocked them off their perch. Then the Jews lost not only financial control of the British monarchy, but also the ear of the Royal Court.
            It would be realistic to claim that the biggest grudge the Jews held against Britain in contemporary times was the latter's absolute refusal to hand over Palestine as the new "Jewish State". In the end the Jewish Zionists prevailed, but it was very hard going. Thereafter the Zionist Lobbies decided to pay more attention to Britain. The colonies had vanished one by one over the years but, diplomatically speaking, Britain was still a powerhouse.
            Though the British monarch has very little real power nowadays, he or she still wields enormous influence, and Prince Charles had already displayed a desire to be the "Defender of Faiths" when eventually crowned King, i.e. not be exclusively restricted to his traditional role as  defender of the Church of England. Ominously perhaps, in late May 1996, just over a year before Diana would later be murdered in a Paris tunnel, Britain's Prime Minister John Major took the odd step of publicly disapproving of Prince Charles' stand, while at the same time cleverly exposing the fact that "faiths" in the Royal plural sense did not include Judaism.
             Interviewed on BBC Television, Major described the desire of the Prince of Wales to be seen as a figurehead for all religions in Britain, including Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, as "odd" and further suggested that such a move could be interpreted as an "empty gesture". It was a performance watched very closely by leading members of the Jewish community, who collectively had very bad vibes about any "King Charles."
            Back in the Middle Ages, Charles I banned the Jews from Britain, and as a result was ruthlessly pursued by Oliver Cromwell, who can fairly be described on his actions and deeds as "Britain's first Communist leader", complete with a subservient proletariat. The Jews wanted back in, and Cromwell was their man body and soul. 
            Eventually fate and Oliver Cromwell caught up with Charles I, who faced his execution on the 30 January 1649 at Whitehall, where he was beheaded on a specially built scaffold. Then after a respectable interlude of just a few years, Oliver Cromwell graciously and obediently allowed the Jews back into Britain. Mark the 30th January 1649 well, because something extraordinary was to happen exactly three hundred and fifty years later in London, as we will shortly see.
            With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the modern Prince Charles' nineties stand on religion can now be seen as reckless, if not downright dangerous. In the run-up to his statement about "faiths", Charles had payed several visits to Muslim communities, while apparently ignoring Judaism.  In so doing, Prince Charles opened himself up as a target for Jewish fanatics, none of whom were prepared to run the risk of being ejected from Britain all over again.
             It was finally considered much better [and far easier] to discredit Charles, and thus prevent him ever ascending the throne. Naturally enough the Zionist lobby knew all about the exploitable skeleton in Charles' closet - Camilla Parker-Bowles - because they had full control of the earlier "bugging" sequences by Britain's MI6. But if the Zionists thought Prince Charles was a big problem, they were certainly not ready for the shattering events of 1997.
            Quite suddenly a catastrophe happened. Instead of continuing to hang out with a relatively harmless wet-behind-the-ears British army officer, Princess Diana started a relationship with Dodi Al Fayed, son of Mohammed Al Fayed of Harrod's fame. And if there was one man in England the Zionist lobby loved to hate with a passion it was Mohammed Al Fayed.
            So intense was their hatred that for more than twenty years, members of the Lobby had prevented Mohammed Al Fayed from obtaining British citizenship, a privilege handed out on a daily basis to any illegal immigrant who bothered to knock on Britain's back door.
            It became instantly obvious to the Zionist Lobby that Dodi Al Fayed could not be controlled at all. This man was not a junior British officer who could be cowed by Whitehall or by "The Firm" at Buckingham Palace, but an independent Special FX Producer from Hollywood with the full backing of his immensely wealthy father.
            Though the Lobby felt confident it could "influence" or even control the rather muddled relationship between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and eventually use that relationship to undermine Prince Charles completely, the thought of a powerful Muslim influence being anywhere near Prince William or Prince Harry, drove its members to distraction.
            Somehow the Zionist Lobby had to get rid of Dodi Al Fayed, and then once more arrogantly display its implicit "influence" over Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. If Dodi Al Fayed was allowed to continue his relationship with Princess Diana, and perhaps marry her, then ultimately his discreet influence over Prince William and Prince Harry could well undermine all of their careful work, and preparations to guide the future King of England and his heirs. But how could they get rid of him?
            Suddenly, as if from nowhere, there was an answer to the Zionist prayers. With its driver suddenly blinded by a Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapon, and amid an appalling screech of brakes and twisted metal, the Mercedes 600 SEL carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris, cannoned off the wall of the Pont de l' Alma tunnel and came to rest in the center lane. Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul were killed on impact. Princess Diana died shortly afterwards. The only survivor was bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones, though he was critically injured.
            Most of Britain went into deep shock, mourning the death of Princess Diana. Hundreds of wreaths took up acres of space outside her official residence, and every faith on earth sent a religious representative to her funeral in Westminster Abbey. Well, all faiths except one. The Chief Rabbi declined to attend, ostensibly because the funeral took place on Shabbat, the Jewish equivalent of Sunday in the Christian Church. It was odd behavior, because I can find no religious law stating that Jews may not enter a Christian Church on a Saturday.
            In Jewish literature, poetry and music, Shabbat is described as a bride or queen, as in the popular Shabbat hymn Lecha Dodi Likrat Kallah (come, my beloved, to meet the [Sabbath] bride). It is said "more than Israel has kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept Israel." Shabbat is not specifically a day of prayer. "To say that Shabbat is a day of prayer is no more accurate than to say that Shabbat is a day of feasting: we eat every day, but on Shabbat, we eat more elaborately and in a more leisurely fashion." To an outsider like me, the Chief Rabbi's refusal to attend seemed more like a deliberate snub.
            Over the next year or so Prince Charles fought a rising tide of public hostility, as he tried to introduce Camilla Parker-Bowles as his consort. The British people barely concealed their resentment and indeed, several conspiracies started to do the rounds that tacitly accused the Prince of being directly involved in the murder of his young wife. There was never any direct or indirect evidence to support these preposterous claims, and over the years they died away.
            Eventually, in January 1999, arrangements were made for a party at the Ritz Hotel in London, apparently to celebrate the birthday of one of Camilla's many friends. It is most unlikely that Prince Charles or Camilla Parker-Bowles decided on the date, venue or the time, because traditionally junior staff take care of such details. Put another way, suddenly deciding to have a party specifically at the London Ritz on 29 January was almost certainly not their own idea.
            The media was discreetly told to be there, and when all were in place, the Prince strode down the steps of the Ritz with Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm. Then the Pulsed-Strobe LTL Optical Weapon fired, and for a millionth of a second history stood perfectly still. Exactly fifty years before, on 29 January 1949, the Crown had finally and very grudgingly granted diplomatic recognition to the State of Israel.
            Leading Zionists in London celebrated this victory by partying all night and into the next day at the very same Ritz Hotel. Thus, unknown to the participants, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles' party at the London Ritz on 29 January 1999, marked the Golden Jubilee of the greatest single Zionist victory over Great Britain. And as the hands of the clock slipped past  midnight, and the date advanced seamlessly to the 30th January 1999, the party also marked the 350th anniversary of the execution of Charles I. 
            Early this week the Mirror newspaper in London printed the name of the man who Princess Diana [allegedly] wrote " planning 'an accident' in my car  brake failure and serious head injury..." Though the actual words had been blacked-out for years, the Mirror revealed for the first time that Diana had apparently written in full, "my husband is planning 'an accident' in my car.  brake failure and serious head injury..."
            It was the ultimate horror story of a fairy princess brutally murdered by her ogre of an adulterous husband, and the public loved it to death. Virtually no-one bothered to even ask if the letter was genuine, nor whether Princess Diana, a qualified teacher with the best education money can buy in Great Britain, would by herself have made the provable errors in the body of the text. And all of this was printed by a left-wing newspaper with a known vested interest in the abolition of the Monarchy. Just a bit too convenient, wouldn't you say?
            A snip of the Mirror letter reproduced by is posted below, and shows very clearly where the "Princess" suddenly lost complete control of her English language skills. In all other letters written before her death, Princess Diana without exception starts a new sentence with a capital letter, i.e. "is planning 'an accident' in my car. Brake failure..." Not with this single letter though. All of a sudden Diana loses her grasp of the English language for the very first time, and writes instead, "is planning 'an accident' in my car. brake failure..."
           There is more, much much more. Just about every wife reading this report knows that in the real world of princesses and commoners, Diana would have used "Charles" if writing to a close friend, or perhaps modified this to "Prince Charles" if writing to a servant. Only the editor of a major newspaper would think of "my husband", an intimate and very personal term, substituted in order to wring every last bit of emotion out of a dumbstruck gullible audience.
            Whether Princess Diana actually wrote this letter or not we will never know for certain, though it seems most unlikely that she did. Indeed, the Dutchess of York, a lifetime friend, seemed appalled. "That just isn't her" Fergie said, shaking her head in  bewilderment.
            Forgery would be simplicity with today's super computers and graphics software. All you need is a sample of Diana's handwriting including all letters in the alphabet, and the computer does the rest for you. Unfortunately, a computer would not necessarily know that Princess Diana always started each new sentence with a capital letter, nor that "my husband" sounds ridiculous to normal human beings.
            As things stand at present, the Royal Coroner has demanded that this "letter" be forwarded to him for use as evidence. Let us all hope that the Royal Coroner has his wits about him, and compares this missive with others written by the Princess in her own hand. Even the best of computers would be overtaxed trying to duplicate the exact pressure exerted by Diana on her own notepaper, if indeed the Mirror letter was actually written on the right notepaper from Kensington Palace. Food for thought...
           As to why one of Britains largest newspapers is manipulating the truth, or itself being manipulated by others, the text below is probably as good an explanation as any. About half of this text was published in 2002 to explain inexplicable parallels between the Ritz Hotel in Paris and its namesake in London, and also describes the weaponry used to cause the crash. The fresh half, woven into the original, reveals for the first time the identity of those responsible for the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.   

  - Click Here
Exactly Where is "Kennington Palace"?
The forgers of the "Diana Letter" made far less subtle mistakes than capital letters. According to the photographs in the Mirror newspaper, Diana wrote the horrible expose on her own stationary at Kennington Palace. Where? When she was alive, Diana lived at Kensington Palace, a well-known royal residence. "Kennington Palace" used to be part of Lambeth Palace in southeast London, currently the London home of the Archbishop of Caterbury.