Donderdag 17 januari 2008 Verzonden aan AMANDA PLATELL van de DAILY MAIL als reactie op Diana: This isn't an inquest. It's a parade of spivs and charlatans that diminishes us all: Dear Amanda, I read your article with intererst and herewith you find my comment. I agree with your remark of fantasy and fabrication. Of all the people who appeared in THE DIANA INQUEST until now no one has made a testimony about the plans that I had with Diana as the owner of the trademark INSTITUTO CERVANTES in THE NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM AND LUXEMBURG and the LIMITED COMPANY INSTITUTO CERVANTES ENGLAND AND WALES and as such as the colleague of the PRESIDENT OF HONOUR of the SPANISH INSTITUTO CERVANTES in MADRID: KING JUAN CARLOS OF SPAIN. Diana was my spiritual partner already since 1992. She separated from Prince Charles shortly after I had founded the foundation STICHTING CERVANTES BENELUX in AMSTERDAM on the 8th of October 1992. Paul Burrell was Her confident, but it is amazing that he could not even remember all the registered letters that I had sent to Diana as from the day of Her divorce, the 28th of August 1996. Mr David Sharp was in the posession of copies of all those letters when I spoke with him on the 23d of April 1997 at ETON COLLEGE. Since I founded the limited company INSTITUTO CERVANTES ENGLAND AND WALES and had communicated that to Diana on the 18th of December 1996 Diana had ordered him to safeguard all Her belongings. It is odd that Mr Burrell did not realize that he had to safeguard them for our company. I consider all the stories about Her relationship - or whatever that may be - with mr Emad AL Fayed and the fantasies of his father as a complete farce. I agree with your remark that what should have been the solemn administration of justice has instead turned into a showbiz carnival. Until now not any legal issue has been treated. Only the gossips of all the outstanders who have nothing to do with our business and have not any right to judge about it. Except THE QUEEN. The remark of Lady Raine Spencer that Diana was 'deeply and blissfully' in love with Dodi Fayed is buffling. How could she know? Diana used a hidden agenda and was very well trained in communication strategies. Why should Diana have become in love with that stranger while She had already received my proposal to make our companies a wonderful Dutch-British Family Company? I can not understand the tunnelvision of all your British fellow people who seem to be incapable to look over the borders of the beaches of Kent, Essex and Norfolkshire. In my vision Diana needed Dodi Fayed only as a capital investor for our company and nothing more than that. I don't believe in all the fantasies being written but only in the legal truth of which Mr Mohamed Al Fayed must be completely aware. I was also surprised when Mr Burrell returned to the court with the "Big Secret" without mentionning the CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION of INSTITUTO CERVANTES ENGLAND AND WALES that I left at Kensington Palace on the 18th of August 1997 and without mentionning my book LETTERS TO DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES. Nevertheless I am glad with the testimonies of the witnesses about a so called engagement with Dodi Fayed. How could She get engaged with another man while She had received a proposal already on the 28th of December 1996? About the nature of Diana's death there is nothing more to add. We started in 1992 with our CERVANTES PLAN and She died on the 31st of August 1997. Since then I had to carry on alone and to read all the absurdities in the British newspapers. Fact is that Mr Mohamed Al Fayed admitted that his son wanted to take Diana to his apartment in the fatal night, shortly after he had received my fax message concerning our company. And we have never seen or heard one single statement personally made by MY LADY that that had been her personal wish to go along with him. Therefore I consider the fatal accident in Paris as the result of an attempted kidnapping of the Princess of Wales for which Mohamed Al Fayed is personally responsible. So I agree with your following words: All this might not matter so much if this was to be the closing act of the Diana show. If there was the smallest hope that the verdict would silence Mr Al Fayed and his fellow conspiracy theorists, then there is perhaps an argument that it should proceed, as quickly as possible, so they can be exposed as the delusional characters they are. And everything more in your article. At this moment of writing I read No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts? So I am the first again like it used to be since 1992. Thank you very much AMANDA for your wonderful analysis. JOHN VAN DER HEYDEN TORREMOLINOS SPAIN
11:16 After two failed attempts to submit I have given up. No problem. I will get the answers to my questions in the next coming period. But it is possible that the editor has received the message several times without acknowledge to me confirmation of receipt.
Burrell's confession: I copied Diana's letters without her consent Last updated at 08:13am on 17th January 2008 Humiliated former royal butler Paul Burrell sensationally admitted yesterday that he copied Diana's letters behind her back before sending them off to America for "safekeeping". SO, WHAT HAPPENED WITH MY LETTERS? De Telegraaf do 17 jan 2008, 11:59 "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" 13:07 Reactie: Bill Clinton is helder geweest. Hij heeft aan het begin van de impeachmentprocedure een verklaring voorgelezen over wat hij verstond over een sexuele relatie, t.w. geslachtsgemeenschap. Dus waar kindertjes uit voortkomen. Dat was ZIJN referentiekader. Hoe anderen daarover dachten was absoluut irrelevant. In juridisch opzicht was daar niets tegen in te brengen. Het ziet ernaar uit dat de republikeinen die zaak oprakelen om HILLARY CLINTONS opmars naar het Witte Huis te stuiten. 13:24 Mijn reactie is nog niet geplaatst in de Daily Mail en ingewijden zijn toch wel op de hoogte. Bovenvermelde reactie is wel vermeld in de Telegraaf van vandaag. Ogenschijnlijk is er geen verband, maar bij het noemen van Paula Jones denk ik ogenblikkelijk aan mijn brief over CORPORATE GOVERNANCE van 26 augustus 1997. Diana inquest: former Met chief accused of being part of 'murderous conspiracy' Last updated at 14:38pm on 17th January 2008
THE QUESTION REMAINS: WHAT HAPPENED WITH MY OFFICIAL ORIGINAL LETTERS AS PRINTED MATTER OF INSTITUTO CERVANTES BENELUX?
It's nice to see KEVIN KEEGAN
back It's been already some time ago that I met him in THE NUMBER ONE BAR
in TORREMOLINOS and THE
LONDON PUB in FUENGIROLA. I voted NO in
the DAILY MAIL POLL to the question Is the Diana
inquest a waste of time? 84% have voted YES and 16% have voted
NO.
OOPS! You have already voted on this topic.
So my opinion can change as soon as they are going to deal with
the LEGAL ISSUES about for example:
WHAT HAPPENED WITH PRINCESS
DIANA'S LAST WILL
OF DECEMBER
1996? WHY HAS NOT
IT BEEN PUBLISHED? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACT THAT IT HAS
NOT BEEN PUBLISHED? WHY HAVE'NT I BEEN POLITELY RECEIVED AT ST.
JAMES'S PALACE ON THE 18TH OF APRIL 1997 AS THE LEGAL COLLEAGUE OF THE
KING OF SPAIN? ETC.
ETC.