Who Killed Diana, and Why? Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

18

Robert Barwick interviewed John Morgan, author 

of the Diana Inquest book series, for EIR on 16 January 

2015.

Barwick:  How did you get involved in this 

investigation?

Morgan: In 2003 I was diagnosed with a serious 

illness and I had to decide what I would do. And 

then I thought, “Well I can write”. That’s something 

I’d always wanted to do, so I decided to write. And 

in 2003, the same year I got sick, Diana’s butler, Paul 

Burrell, produced a book. Now, I’m not a person 

who follows Royalty, so I didn’t get the book, but I 

did see in the papers a handwritten letter Diana had 

written predicting her death. That prediction was 

an incredible thing. You’ve got a lady predicting not 

only that she might die, but the way she was going 

to die. I saw that, and that was the thing that got me in. 

Barwick:  What is it about your background that 

makes you good at mastering details, as is evident in 

your work?

Morgan: I was an accountant for many years, and 

I’ve got that sort of mind, I suppose, for looking at 

details. I just try to logically work through everything. 

I’ve got patience with it. I’ve been working on it now 

for ten years this year, and I’ve remained focussed on it. 

Barwick: And seven or eight books later, are you 

still working on it?

Morgan: Yes, I’m still working on it. I’ve got another 

volume, which will be the last volume in the series. 

I’ve got a very severe illness, so I just don’t know how 

long I can keep writing for, so I thought I’d better do 

that summary book, which is an 800-page book that 

condenses, is an abridgement of the six volumes. I 

thought I’d better do that, because that book is more 

important than finishing the whole series.

Barwick:  In terms of the information you’ve 

published, it would appear you got leaks from within 

the Establishment.

Morgan:  Yes. In 2010, I’d finished a number 

of volumes, and then I received a huge volume of 

documents that were from within the British police 

investigation. These were documents that had been 

withheld from the jury during the inquest, and they 

are things like the post-mortem report for Diana 

and Dodi. The jury is expecting to be looking into 

the cause of death, and yet they withheld from the 

jury the post-mortem report! There were hundreds 

of documents, and as soon as I got them, I thought, 

well, I’ve got to publish. I can’t hang on to this stuff—

it just makes you a target. There was actually a press 

conference in Brisbane at the time, and I took some of 

them to show to the media there. And then I thought 

I’ve just got to publish the documents, so I published 

a whole book, about 700 pages, of documents. That’s 

the main leak, and that made a huge difference to my 

investigation. I had the Paget Report [the 2004-2006 

British Metropolitan Police investigation], I had the 

inquest transcripts, and I had the books written by 

witnesses, like Paul Burrell, people like that, and it 

was a matter of connecting them all together. When I 

got these documents, that sort of filled in the jigsaw.

Barwick: Did that leak confirm to you that people 

inside the Establishment knew you were on the right 

track?

Morgan: Yes, I suppose that’s right.

Barwick: Is it not the case that MI5 and MI6 report 

directly to the Queen, and not to any government 

office; although there is apparently a weak oversight 

body in the Parliament, in terms of accountability they 

report directly to the Queen?

Morgan: Yes, I think they do. I think they go to both. 

The evidence I found, when I studied MI6, indicates 

they work on behalf of the government, but there’s 

also evidence they work on behalf of the Royals, 

particularly the Queen. People say they work off their 

own bat, but I didn’t find much evidence of that. They 

are doing the work of the government and also the 

Queen and senior Royals.

Barwick:  The movie [Unlawful Killing] and your 

books both demonstrate that the notion most Britons 

have of the Queen, that she is above politics, is absurd. 

Would you agree?

Morgan: Absolutely. This is something they admit 

themselves. Every week there is a meeting between 

the Queen and the Prime Minister, and if the Prime 

Minister is out of town, he has to call her. Why? Are 

they talking about the corgis? What are they talking 

about? They are talking about things of consequence 

to the state. 

Barwick: Diana’s willingness to go outside of the 

Royal Family and speak out made her a threat to the 

survival of the Monarchy as an institution.

Morgan: Absolutely right, I agree with that. I draw 

a line from 1992, when she first went public with 

Andrew Morton’s book, and then 1995, when she 

went on national TV. These things all contributed to the 

trouble she was causing. And once outside the Royal 

Family, she was a loose cannon.

Diana Predicted How She Would Die

Interview with John Morgan

From EIR, 13 February 2015

---

19

‘How They Murdered Princess Diana’

Reprinted below is Chapter 119, “How they murdered 

Princess Diana”, from Australian investigator John Morgan’s 

book of the same title (Shining Bright Publishing, 2014, pp. 

680-85). Thus it is the conclusion of the final volume he man-

aged to write, despite an advancing illness to which he suc-

cumbed in Nov. 2015, summarising his entire investigation. 

Footnotes have been removed.

The death of Princess Diana on 31 August 1997 was one of 

the most shocking events of the latter part of the 20th century. 

Even more shocking though is the full knowledge of the 

circumstances of her death—assassination at the hands of the 

British Secret Intelligence Service under the directions of senior 

members of the royal family, headed by Queen Elizabeth II.

Princess Diana’s life was stolen by MI6 and the royals, 

and her death was stolen by the Queen, Scotland Yard and 

the British judiciary.

Diana was abused throughout her marriage—serious-

ly mistreated by senior royals, including her husband Prince 

Charles. But after being assassinated, her body was mistreat-

ed—with multiple embalmings and post-mortems—princi-

pally under the direction of the Queen. Then the investiga-

tion of her death was hijacked by corrupt senior officials in 

the French and British police, including MPS [Metropolitan 

Police Service] commissioners Paul Condon and John Ste-

vens. The final injustice was carried out at the hands of Lord 

Justice Scott Baker, who pretended to conduct a thorough in-

vestigation, but instead presided over one of the most corrupt 

and mismanaged inquests in British history.

Along the way some critical witnesses have died in a timely 

fashion—James Andanson, driver of the white Fiat Uno, died 

in the midst of planning a book on the crash including pho-

tos of the final journey; Gary Hunter, who saw cars fleeing the 

scene post-crash at high speed, died close to the commence-

ment of the Paget investigation; Victor Mishcon, who record-

ed Diana’s fear of death in an orchestrated car crash, died be-

fore the commencement of the British inquest into the deaths. 

Senior members of the royal family were stunned when 

Princess Diana went public in 1992 with accounts of their 

cruel abuse of her. Within months the Queen made sure that 

Diana was officially separated from her son, Prince Charles. 

Then there was more upset when in November 1995 Diana 

went on nationwide TV talking about her mistreatment and 

her marriage. Within a month the Queen had instructed Di-

ana and Charles to divorce—and the marriage ended in Au-

gust 1996. 

The Queen went further—she proceeded to separate Diana 

from the royal family and removed her HRH title. This had the 

effect of putting Diana outside of the Queen’s legal reach—so 

if Diana was to continue to misbehave then the Queen was 

no longer in a position to punish her, legally. 

Princess Diana did continue to “misbehave”. Throughout 

late 1996 and into 1997 she compiled a dossier as part of her 

campaign to eradicate landmines—and she made high-pro-

file visits to heavily mined areas in Angola and Bosnia. These 

actions upset the leadership of Britain, France and the US—

the three most prolific weapons-trading nations in the west-

ern world. 

Then in the middle of 1997 Diana again riled the Queen. 

This time she accepted an offer to holiday with Mohamed Al 

Fayed—viewed by the Establishment as a pariah—at his vil-

la in the South of France. 

That would not have been a problem—but this was a fam-

ily holiday and Diana would be accompanied by her two 

sons, the Queen’s grandchildren, Princes William and Harry. 

Over the following weeks a romance developed between 

Mohamed’s son, Dodi, and the princess. 

The Queen called a special meeting of the royal Way 

Ahead Group, chaired by herself. It was around this time 

that a decision was made by senior royals to eliminate Prin-

cess Diana—with the acquiescence and knowledge of the 

leaders of the UK, France and USA: Tony Blair, Jacques Chi-

rac and Bill Clinton. 

Diana, Princess of Wales was a “loose cannon”, had 

caused too much trouble and now had to go. 

MI6 was handed the job. Senior personnel were drafted 

into France and Sherard Cowper-Coles, who later was pro-

moted to ambassador to Saudi Arabia, headed the Paris oper-

ation. The assassination was carried out in the Alma Tunnel in 

Paris on 31 August 1997—MI6 received assistance from the 

CIA and the French intelligence agencies, the DST and DGSE. 

Assassination was not enough. 

Diana’s punishment continued into death, when she was 

subjected to two post-mortems and two embalmings in Par-

is and London. 

What then followed was one of the largest and most com-

prehensive cover-ups in history. Orchestrated through France’s 

Brigade Criminelle and Britain’s Organised Crime Group, top 

police officers pretended over a period of ten years to carry out 

a thorough investigation of the death. Instead, their purpose 

was to ensure the truth of the deaths of Princess Diana and 

Dodi Fayed, who died with her, would forever be covered up. 

This huge cover-up operation culminated in the much-de-

layed London inquest into the deaths, which commenced in 

October 2007, headed by coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker. 

This six month inquest has been exposed as one of the 

most corrupt investigations in British judicial history. 

The central issue of this case is the number of elephants in 

the room—there is not just one elephant. In fact there are so 

many elephants in this room that eventually the room must 

collapse and the entire house may come crashing down. 

These “elephants in the room”—major issues that were ei-

ther ignored or covered up in the official investigations—are: 

•  Princess Diana was no longer a member of the royal 

family—so why did she suddenly become royal immediate-

ly after dying? 

•  Ritz CCTV and witness evidence reveal that Henri Paul, 

the Mercedes driver, was sober on the night;

• the two autopsies and sample testing on Henri Paul 

were clearly fraudulent;

•  there has never been any credible explanation for the 

elevated carbon monoxide level in the blood tested;

•  Dominique Lecomte and Gilbert Pépin—the two peo-

ple responsible for Henri’s autopsies and toxicology testing—

both refused to appear at the inquest and the jury also heard 

no statement evidence from them;

•  it took a second search by French police of Henri’s apart-

ment before large quantities of alcohol were “uncovered”;

•  failure of the investigations to establish the source of 

funds in Henri’s overflowing bank accounts;

•  the pursuing motorbikes—seen by many witnesses—

were clearly not paparazzi—there is no CCTV footage of the fi-

nal journey despite there being traffic cameras along the route;

•  London lawyer, Gary Hunter, witnessed vehicles flee-

ing the scene at speed;

• the crash occurred at a time when there was no 

back-up car, even though it was required practice to have 

one—every other Diana-Dodi trip in Paris that weekend 

---