Prince Charles Implicated in Murder of
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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."
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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".
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.
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
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
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.
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
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
this week the Mirror newspaper in London printed the name of the man who
Princess Diana [allegedly] wrote "...is 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
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 GuluFuture.com 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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