Jury Ruling Is a Sham on Princess Diana Death

Today’s headlines announce that the coroner’s jury that spent six months listening to evidence on Princess Diana’s death made a determination (with 2 jurors dissenting) that nothing shady was involved, just drink and reckless driving. Come now, do the British ruling elite really think that the people who orchestrate murder are qualified to try and prosecute themselves?

Al Fayed, father of Diana’s fiance who also died in the crash, accuses Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth, of planning the deaths and implementing them through the aid of the British Secret Service. “I’m not the only person who says they were murdered. Diana predicted that she would be murdered and how it would happen,” Fayed said in a statement read by his spokeswoman.

The coroner had instructed the jury that manslaughter was the strongest charge they could make, that murder was not to be considered. Well, that sounds really fair and open-minded. But what can you expect when the gang that is guilty is running the inquest?

Lord John Stevens, Britain’s former top policeman who headed the investigation, said, “I do hope everybody will take this verdict as being closure … and the people who have died will be allowed to rest in peace.” His feelings are not hard to understand. Murder, after all, is supposed to shut people up. It’s messy if people know an accident was staged and won’t stop talking about it. How inconvenient for him that he can’t put us all six feet under.

Princess Diana was aware of the hypocrisies in the royal family and the Secret Intelligence Service. She may have had insider knowledge about the global conspiracy. Her friend Simone Simmons said shortly before Diana was killed that Diana told Simmons she was going to name names and publish a dossier called “Profiting Out of Misery.”

“The most important thing is, it is murder,” stated Fayed, as he left the halls ironically named “the Royal Courts of Justice.” Unless he keeps fighting and digs still deeper, Fayed will get the same kind of justice that the Kennedy and 9/11 investigations meted out in America: more lies to protect all the lies. Good luck to him, and may he continue with courage.

Bronte Baxter

1 Comment

  1. April 17, 2008 at 7:12 am



    I met a man. His name was Tupper Saussy. He happened to have been the ghost writer for a book by James Earl Ray, entitled “ Tennessee Waltz” published in 1987. The book gives Ray’s account of the events to state that he did not kill Dr. King.

    Saussy’s view, in his long conversations with me, was that James Earl Ray was not Dr. King’s murderer and he explained to me in considerable detail why Ray was not the killer, then gave me a copy of the book which I then read.

    On Thursday, the 3rd April, 2008, I watched a CNN special on the eve of the anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination. The book came back to mind and I asked myself on conclusion of the CNN special – why is CNN trying to confuse the public?

    Before I return to the book’s contents, I would invite the reader to look at the physical location at the Lorraine Motel, where Dr. King was shot, and consider the photographs of the positioning of surrounding buildings, the trajectory of the bullet, and the direction that the witnesses present were all pointing to when the single shot rang out that killed Dr. King. The web site is worth a visit and it is at :-(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE1/overlooked.html).

    The reasoning at the web site is sound, the pictures are clear and the conclusions can logically be drawn.

    Back to the book. Read Ray’s own story for yourself and draw your own conclusions. The points I would leave you with are these:-

    A. Why would the witnesses present all be pointing in the direction they heard the shot come from, and CNN be leading the unsuspecting public in 2008 towards some alternative belief that they were pointing elsewhere to a window at a rooming house across the street, from where Ray is supposed to have shot Dr. King?
    B. Is there anything to be made of Ray’s reference to an operative or handler called “Raoul”, and if Ray was this perfect sniper shot who assassinated Dr. King – did he simply conveniently drop all his evidence outside the doorway of the rooming house, to link him to the crime?
    C. If, it was Ray’s doing from reference to B above – then why don’t the test bullets fired from the weapon attributed to Ray not ballistically match the bullet taken from Dr. King – so who did fire the weapon that killed Dr. King?


    A single person cannot be in two places at the same time. There are two (2) vantage points for the location of the sniper who did the shooting (1) a window from the rooming house and (2) the Gattis penthouse ( to which Andrew Young and all other witnesses are pointing at the time of the shooting).

    Again, carefully review the photographic evidence at the web site:- (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE1/overlooked.html).

    Now – you decide – who killed Dr. Martin Luther King?

    When the state is confronted with legitimate challenges against its destructive polices:-

    “…I knew that I could not ever again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greater purveyor of violence in the world: my own government.” Martin Luther King in his “Beyond Vietnam” 1967 speech.
    it has the power to destroy those who dare speak truth to power. The agents of the government of the United States of America did first attempt to destroy the reputation of Dr. Martin Luther, and used its FBI’s COINTELPRO program to try by criminal means to destroy the credence of those who fought for and sought equal rights and justice. When that failed – well – simply stated, the agents of the state just murdered Dr. King.
    Courtenay Barnett – 4th April, 2008
    Courtenay Barnett is a graduate of London University. His areas of study were economics, political science and international law. He has been a practising lawyer for over twenty years, has been arrested for defending his views, and has argued public interest and human rights cases. His web site: http://www.globaljusticeonline.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: