Lawrence of Arabia
and Yevgeny Prigrozhin
Most people find it quite easy to believe
that the airplane crash that killed Yevgeny Prigrozhin,
the leader of the mercenary Wagner Group, who had led a mutiny against the
Russian government, was no simple accident.
In fact, word has leaked from U.S. intelligence that an
intentional explosion brought the airplane down and that President Vladimir
Putin was behind it.
The CIA would have some familiarity with
such methods. The contrived “accident”
is right there in their assassination
manual
as an expedient form of secret assassination, allowing the perpetrator to deny
responsibility for something deemed not to be a murder at all and attracting
little attention. An airplane crash is
not on their list of contrived accidents, but it takes little imagination to
see that that would be one of the easiest forms to pull off. All it would require would be access to the
airplane for the purpose of planting a timed explosive prior to the
flight. Suspicions of such secret
assassinations in the United States are widespread.
The first one that comes to mind is that
of John Kennedy, Jr. Michael Rivero includes him on his voluminous
“Clinton body count” list because he
was said to be seriously considering running for the U.S. Senate seat for New
York that Hillary Clinton eventually won, using it as a springboard for her
political career. In fact, Rivero has
the names of 39 people on the list who have died in airplane accidents alone.
As suspicious air crash fatalities with a
political angle go, that of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone is also high on
the list. Right next to it would be the
disappearance in Alaska of the airplane of Rep. Hale Boggs of Louisiana
along with Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska.
We need say little more about that one than to remind readers that Boggs
had been a critical member of the Warren Commission that “investigated” the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
And even The Washington
Post
is
still suspicious of the plane crash that killed Dorothy Hunt, the wife of
Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, with James D. Robenalt
writing in that newspaper in 2022, “Fifty years later, it is still unclear
whether there was ‘foul play,’ as the National Transportation Safety Board
characterized the speculation, in the downing of United 553.”
In the international realm, the two cases
of suspicious plane crashes that probably top the list are those of UN
Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld and Pakistani
dictator Muhammed Zia ul-Haq.
A form of contrived accident that the CIA
assassination manual does mention is an automobile accident. The most famous possible one of that sort was
that of General George S.
Patton. General Patton had been quite open in his
pro-German and anti-Jewish sentiments, and he had many supporters in the United
States. Much lesser known is the very suspicious death
of the young Rolling Stone reporter, Michael Hastings, in 2013. I link to an account of his strange fatal
“accident” in my poem, “Assassination 101.” Here is how Carl Gibson’s article on the subject
begins:
Early in the morning on June 18, a brand new Mercedes C250 coupe was driving through the
Melrose intersection on Highland Avenue in Hollywood when suddenly, out of
nowhere, it sped up. According to an eye-witness, the car accelerated rapidly,
bounced several times then fishtailed out of control before it slammed into a
palm tree and burst into flames, ejecting its engine some 200
feet away.
We learn from Gibson that Hastings had
written very critically and trenchantly about the U.S. military in Afghanistan
in general and General Stanley McChrystal in particular, and that his life had actually been threatened by one of Gen. McChrystal’s aides.
We have also written about the supposedly
accidental deaths of two very prominent people that are also very suspicious,
bearing very strong earmarks that they were really secret
assassinations. The first article was
about the supposed skiing accident by the experienced skier, California Congressman Sonny Bono in January of
1998. Bono had exhibited greater public
curiosity than any other member of Congress about the siege in 1993 upon the
compound of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
The second one is about the death of the
84-year-old Washington Post publisher, Katharine Graham, supposedly from
a simple fall on a sidewalk in Sun Valley, Idaho, in July of 2001. We speculate that she must have been a
stumbling block to the 9/11 false flag operation that was in its planning
stages. Our main reason for being
suspicious of the death is that no one seems to have witnessed the fall, which
somehow managed to cause multiple fractures of her skull (unreported by the
national press, including Graham’s own newspaper) and that we were not even
told who found her lying on the sidewalk and summoned emergency workers.
Along with Hugh Turley, we have gone far
beyond the Bono and Graham level of speculation in our examination of the
supposed death-by-accidental-electrocution on December 10, 1968, of the famous
Catholic monk and writer, Thomas Merton. We have now produced two books, The
Martyrdom of Thomas Merton: An Investigation, and Thomas Merton’s
Betrayers: The Case against Abbot James Fox and Author John Howard Griffin,
and numerous articles on the subject. We
believe that we have shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that Merton was not
killed by the faulty Hitachi fan in his room found lying across his supine body
in a Red Cross retreat center in Thailand, which is the press-promoted story
but was never the official cause of death as determined by the Thai police.
T.E. Lawrence’s
“Motorcycle Accident”
This brings us to the main title character
of this essay. The Englishman, Mark J.T.
Griffin, with his 2022 book, Who Killed
Lawrence of Arabia,* has now produced two major works on the
man’s very suspicious death. The first
was the critically acclaimed and multiply awarded fictionalized movie, Lawrence
after Arabia. The fate of that movie
up to now is well captured by the title we chose for the essay we wrote about
it, “Important
Assassination Movie Quashed.” Not only did
the film get no commercial distributor, despite its artistic quality and the importance
of the subject, which should have sparked worldwide interest, but there has
hardly even been any mention of it on the Internet.
We did find a Fox News article entitled “Lawrence of Arabia
might have been murdered by British secret service, new film suggests” written by a
reporter named Benjamin Weinthal. It was published on December 11, 2018,
which is before the movie was released, and Weinthal
makes it clear that he had not had the opportunity to see the movie. Nevertheless, Weinthal
writes in his article, “The problem with Griffin’s claims are
[sic] the lack of any solid evidence. Leading Lawrence scholars such as Jeremy
Wilson, the author of ‘Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorised
Biography of T. E. Lawrence (1989)’, said: ‘Countless fictions have built up
around Lawrence’s life.’”
The article is accompanied by a short
video, which consists of a series of declarative statements against a
background of still photographs and a musical background suggesting tension. Right at the beginning it states as a fact
that Lawrence “died in a 1935 motorcycle accident in England.” Near the end we have this: “Griffin lacks any
substantial evidence for his claims.
Many prominent Lawrence biographers have tried to debunk the rumors for
years.”
The video is doubtless Weinthal’s
handiwork as well, written, as we have noted, without his even having seen the
movie. What one sees here, in lieu of
evidence, is the invocation of nos. 3 and 7 of our “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.” Number 3 is “Characterize the charges as
rumors”; number 7 is “Invoke authority.”
The authority that he invokes is that of “many prominent Lawrence biographers,”
only one of whom he names, the authorized biographer Wilson.
We admit that we haven’t read Wilson’s
book, but from reading Griffin’s very persuasive one, we strongly suspect that
when it comes to the matter of Lawrence’s death that Wilson is even less
authoritative than authorized biographer, Michael Mott, is concerning
Thomas Merton’s death. As for those
other “prominent” people who have weighed in, we think it’s likely that they
are of a piece with the numerous prominent people who have “informed us” about Merton’s
death.
We also must wonder if some of the
supposed “conspiracy theorists” in the case might not just be another layer in
the cover-up. In my essay on Griffin’s
movie, I quote from a 2013 Internet article by Tony Hays entitled “The Murder of
Lawrence of Arabia,”
reminding readers that Hays has demonstrated shortcomings as a source of
information in the case of U.S. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal’s death. Hays leads off with this passage:
On May 13, 1935, Lawrence was out riding
his motorcycle near Clouds Hill, his cottage
close to Wareham. According to the official version of the story, he came to a
dip in the road. As he rode up the rise, he found himself about to hit two boys
on bicycles. Swerving, he lost control and was flipped over the handlebars of
his motorcycle, sustaining a mortal head wound, but not without clipping one of
the boys.
Hays then goes on to tell us about
witnesses who saw a black car that might have struck the motorcycle causing it
to go out of control, but nowhere does he have anything to say about Lawrence
finding himself suddenly about to hit the bicyclists after coming over a
rise. When one hears that Lawrence had
collided with the rear of a bicycle, the first thing that comes to mind is that
he must have come upon the bike blindly and suddenly, sort of like the false
image of a decrepit Third World situation that comes to mind upon hearing that
Thomas Merton has been killed in Thailand by a faulty fan.
Hays, we find, is not alone in
perpetuating the seemingly plausible scenario that Lawrence came upon the
cyclists suddenly. This is from the T.E.
Lawrence Wikipedia page:
On 13 May 1935, Lawrence was fatally
injured in an accident on his Brough Superior SS100 motorcycle in Dorset close to his
cottage Clouds Hill, near Wareham, just two months after leaving military
service. A dip in the road obstructed his view of two boys on their
bicycles; he swerved to avoid them, lost control, and was thrown over the
handlebars.
Wikipedia’s footnote reference for that is
a 2009 book review from the
BBC. But here’s what the BBC article actually said:
On May 13th he set out on his Brough motorcycle
from Clouds Hill to the camp at Bovington, but as he
returned home he swerved to avoid two boys cycling
along the road, and was thrown over the handlebars, fracturing his skull. He
never regained consciousness, and died six days later.
Notice that there is no obstructed view
caused by a dip in the road in the referenced BBC account. Writer Jane Curran only says falsely that
Lawrence swerved away from the boys when, in fact, he swerved into the trailing
bicycle.
Actually, the entire Wikipedia scenario,
the one that Hays fails to debunk, is utterly false, as we see from this
passage from Griffin:
Given that Lawrence was riding downhill
towards the two cyclists, he would have most likely seen them from 500 yards
away and would not have ridden into the back of them unless, of course, there
was something which he needed to avoid, i.e., another vehicle. (p. 53)
Indeed!
That’s why the existence of the black four-door car that had met the two
boys hugging the side of the road single file and appeared to cause Lawrence’s
motorcycle to swerve out of control after meeting with it is so important. The road was narrow, about 13 ft. wide
according to Griffin’s estimate, but that still would have allowed plenty of
room for Lawrence to pass the cyclists. The
normal thing for him to have done would have been to steer toward the middle of
the road and routinely pass the two boys.
They had been riding abreast, but upon hearing the loud motorcycle
approaching from behind, they had gone into single file to get out of the
motorcycle’s way. This, too, is routine
behavior.
What could have possibly disrupted the
routine? Yates states quite carelessly,
“Almost immediately, rumors cropped up of a mysterious black car that ran
Lawrence off the road.”
There are those darned “rumors”
again. Then Yates follows with this
mishmash:
Dorset historian Rodney Legg and Lawrence biographer Desmond Stewart both believed that Lawrence was
assassinated. Four witnesses stated that they saw the mysterious black car: the
two children who were involved in the incident; a man in a delivery
van; and a soldier, one Private Catchpole, who happened to be in a nearby
field. The children were kept incommunicado in a hospital and did not testify
at the inquest, which was conducted, oddly enough, at Bovington
Camp, and controlled by MI-5 rather than the local police. Catchpole did
testify about the black car, but he, conveniently, killed himself shortly
thereafter. The inquest was held in the morning; Lawrence was buried the same
afternoon. (bolding in the original)
The soldier in question was Corporal, not
Private, Ernest Catchpole. Stationed at Bovington Camp by the side of the road, he stated at
the inquest that he was some 100 yards away from the incident when he saw the
oncoming black car meet first the boys on the bike and then Lawrence’s
motorcycle. He did not see any collision
between the motorcycle and the car, but he did see the motorcycle go out of control
after it had encountered it. He stuck to his story until he was ruled to have
shot himself to death some five years later while on military assignment in
Cairo, Egypt. Griffin does not question
the suicide verdict, but he seems not to have looked into the matter, and its very fact should raise eyebrows. Staff Sergeant Catchpole—to which he had been
promoted—left a wife and daughter.
Griffin writes on page 50, “Catchpole’s testimony
became notorious after Lawrence’s death and the press, very much like the
present day undertook a “hatchet job” on him, for example reporting he
had a history of mental instability.” To
the contrary, according to Griffin, the two military-associate sources he was
able to find described him as a generally normal, sober, and sensible person
whose most notable abnormality might have been his scrupulous honesty.
Griffin doesn’t enumerate the witnesses who say
they saw the black car, but from his description it sounds like there were more
than four of them. The two bicyclists
were not exactly children. Frank
Fletcher, riding in front, and Albert Hargraves, whose bicycle Lawrence’s
motorcycle hit, were both fourteen years old.
Yates notwithstanding, they both testified at the inquest, sounding as
though they had been coached, according to Griffin, and both claimed not to
have seen any such car. But here’s Griffin’s
telling paragraph regarding the black-car witnesses:
Rodney Legg, a well-known local historian, knew
many of the people at the scene of the incident. His findings were that a
number of soldiers, as well as Catchpole, had seen the black car. Legg said one of the reasons Catchpole was
selected as a kind of spokesman was because he insisted that he make an
appearance in court and would act as a representative for a group of soldiers
who were witnesses at the accident site. (p. 44)
Three paragraphs later Griffin writes, “Catchpole
was one of a group of men who had helped put Lawrence on the lorry. A number of these men, soldiers and
civilians, corroborated Catchpole’s report of the car.” (p. 45)
Yates is probably correct, then, that the
historian Legg believed that Lawrence was assassinated, because the official
conclusion that there was no such black car is a cornerstone of the
simple-accident conclusion. And on page
167 Griffin writes, “Desmond Morris compiled evidence that Lawrence’s death was
a cold-blooded murder.”
Griffin has no citation for his observation about
Morris, but he is doubtless referring to the 1977 book, T.E. Lawrence: A New
Biography, which is listed in Griffin’s short bibliography. One of
the customer reviewers on Amazon writes, “Stewart details the circumstances of
his death, in a motorcycle ‘accident,’ of which some salient irregularities
have never been explained.”
So, the impression that Fox News would leave with us that Griffin
is out on a lonesome limb among scholars concerning Lawrence of Arabia’s death
is false. Concerning the one scholar
that the writer Weinthal names, Griffin has this to
say: “T.E. Lawrence biographer Jeremy Wilson covers the crash in one five-lined
paragraph in his seminal 1,188-page biography.”
I would say that the many “salient irregularities” in the case would
have been a bit much for Wilson to tackle in five lines, or in five pages, for
that matter, and Wilson doubtless knew where his bread was buttered.
Speaking of those irregularities, it gets worse, much worse, for
the official simple-accident conclusion. First, Ralph Neville-Jones, the East Dorset
coroner who conducted the inquest before a seven-person jury made up of local
men, which took place just two days after Lawrence’s death, which came six days
after the road incident, directed the jury with this summary statement:
The only conflicting point in the evidence seemed to be that with regard to the black car. I do not necessarily mean that the car had
anything to do with the accident, but the fact that Corporal Catchpole is
certain that he saw it and the boys were certain that they had not seen a car
is rather unsatisfactory. You have now heard
the evidence and I do not think you will have any difficulty in arriving at
your verdict. The facts are only too
clear, and that that the collision was an accident there can be no doubt. What caused the deceased to run into the
pedal cyclist from the rear we shall never know, but the evidence would lead
one to think that Mr Shaw [the last name that
Lawrence had assumed in an attempt to get out of the public spotlight] must
have been travelling at so very fast a speed that he lost control of his
motorcycle.
I do not think there can be any other conclusion on the
evidence. Under the circumstances you
will doubtless consider the proper verdict to bring in will be one of
accidental death.
In his outrageous direction of the jury to a verdict,
Neville-Jones stuck narrowly to the testimony that was permitted at the short
and suspiciously hasty inquest, leaving out the fact that there were several other
witnesses, all of whom corroborated Catchpole’s testimony. He also failed to tell them, as Griffin tells
us on page 27, that both military and civilian police had told the fathers of
Fletcher and Hargraves “that on no account were their sons to be interviewed
without authority.” The military
personnel at Bovington Camp had also been ordered not
to speak to the press lest they run afoul of the severe penalties associated
with Britain’s Official Secrets Act.
Even that might not have been the most important evidence omitted
from the inquest, though. Two hours
after the incident, the maker of the motorcycle, George Brough, had examined it
for defects. As Griffin puts it on page
48, “Although he found no serious structural or mechanical fault, he noted
there was black paint on the offside (right) handlebar and the petrol tank.”
Whoa! What else do you
need? Recall that they drive on the left
in Britain. The rider of a motorcycle goes
wildly out of control after meeting a black car, and flecks of black paint are
found on the handlebar that would have been closest to the car, and on the fuel
tank. Could there be clearer evidence of
hit-and-run? That’s how Brough
interpreted it, and so did the historian Legg, and that’s surely how any
objective person or competent accident investigator would see it. And yet, no all-points bulletin was sent out
for the car, and it was never located.
Brough did not testify in person at the inquest, because he felt that it
would have been incumbent upon him to mention the black paint on the
motorcycle, and the authorities were clear that he was only to weigh in on its
mechanical soundness; his relatively innocuous written statement on that was therefore
all that was entered into the record.
That the immediate “investigators,” the news media, and the
preponderance of the historians have
ignored this well-nigh definitive evidence of a collision speaks volumes. Notice, as well, that the muckraking Internet
writer, Tony Yates, makes no mention of Brough’s discovery, either, while
freely throwing around the mind-deadening “rumor” word.
Who Did It and Why?
With respect to the first question, the volumes spoken by what we
have just recounted demonstrate that the British equivalent of America’s Deep
State was up to its eyeballs in the murder.
Yates says flat out that the inquest was controlled by MI5 instead of
the local police, which might well have been true, but that would have been
making matters altogether too obvious, and Yates doesn’t tell us how he knows
that, so we can just chalk that one up to another example of the man’s loose
connection to the truth. It was quite
odd, though, as Griffin points out, that a civilian proceeding should have been
held in a room of the military facility of Bovington
Camp. The fact of the matter is that
Britain’s secret service doubtless has its own version of the CIA’s
assassination manual, and this one has all the earmarks of the “accident”
version of a secret assassination.
But one hasn’t reached the heart of the matter by saying that
Britain’s spooks did it. Who pulls their
strings, or, more precisely, who was pulling their strings in this instance,
and who continued to pull the strings of people like biographer Jeremy Wilson
and reporter Benjamin Weinthal at Fox News? To get an answer to that question, one must
move quickly to the “why.”
At this point, an observation by the American social critic, Paul Goodman, that I like to quote is appropriate, “In America, you can say
anything you want as long as it has no effect.”
I dare say that the saying applies as well in Britain, and it also was
the case in 1935 when T.E. Lawrence met his death. It begs the question of what might happen to
you if what you say does have an effect and it runs contrary to what
those in power want the public to hear.
Lawrence, only 46 years old when he died, was already a legendary
character because of his success in mobilizing the Arabs in insurrection
against the Turkish allies of the Germans in World War I. Thanks largely to the writing, films, and
lectures about his exploits by the American journalist, Lowell Thomas, he was
already “Lawrence of Arabia.” His
opinions had great effect because of his prominence, and he was not shy in
giving his opinion.
Lawrence’s position as the most prominent spokesman for the
aggrieved Arabs would have put him squarely in the crosshairs of the Zionists,
which must make them the top suspect in his death. Here is how I conclude my article on the quashing of Griffin’s
movie:
Avoiding the [Zionism] topic keeps people away from suspecting
that the people behind Lawrence’s death are those with a very extensive
assassination record in furtherance of their political objectives such as the
killing of Lord Moyne, Count
Bernadotte,
and likely of Gerald Bull, and of Palestinian leaders too numerous to mention. For
clandestine assassinations the staged accident is almost as popular as the staged suicide, which was
clearly the fate of the leading U.S. opponent of Zionism, Defense
Secretary James Forrestal. It’s really very easy to get by with when you
have the government and the news media in your pocket. The effective suppression of Lawrence: After
Arabia shows that it’s also very helpful to have control over the
entertainment industry, as well.
I might also have mentioned that the Zionists attempted to kill
British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin in 1946 with letter bombs and even U.S.
President Harry Truman by the same method in
1947. The “natural” death of the
powerful anti-Zionist publisher, Lord Northcliffe, in 1922 is also highly suspicious. Chapter 7 of the second edition of The Assassination of James Forrestal, entitled “Britain’s
Forrestal,” is devoted to the Bevin case, and chapter 8, “The Other British
Forrestal,” deals with Northcliffe and other suspicious deaths of prominent
people. The concluding chapter 18 sums
up the stunningly murderous Zionist record.
From Griffin we learn that we might add a couple of more prominent
names to the suspicious-death list. A
man whom Lawrence had befriended and supported, Faisal bin Hussein, king of
Syria in 1920 and of Iraq from 1921 until his death in Switzerland, supposedly died
from a heart attack in 1933. He was only
48 years old. His son Ghazi, who
succeeded him as king at age 20, was killed in what Griffin characterizes as “a
mysterious car accident” in April 1939, just before the outbreak of World War
II.
Griffin runs through a list of suspects in Lawrence’s murder,
which includes the Zionists, but, curiously, he doesn’t quite make them his
prime suspects. He notes that there were
Zionist Haganah agents based in England and that the
violent Stern Gang was active throughout Europe, but he doesn’t think that they
did it. But he apparently means that in
the sense that they weren’t the ones driving the black car, because he
concludes his section on the Zionists this way:
However, it is more likely they would have contacted British
Zionists and indeed British Intelligence Services if they had concerns, and if
they thought action was necessary against Lawrence.
The Zionists would have had “agents” in England, but it is far
more likely that they would have outsourced any action to British intelligence.
Yes, we would agree that that’s how it would have been done, but
we would go farther than Griffin and say that, in all
likelihood, that’s how it was done.
Considering the very strong evidence of Zionist interest in seeing
Lawrence dead, Griffin has a quite curious passage in his afterword. The afterword begins with what Griffin seemed
to regard as a surprising interest by the Israelis in his movie project. An Israeli journalist, he tells us, kept
pestering him with questions as to whether he might point the finger of blame
for Lawrence’s death at the Zionists.
Griffin just put the man off and never did answer his questions, but
when his movie, which does mention almost in passing the possibility of Zionist
involvement, failed to get a distributor, he began to wonder. Then comes the odd passage on his concluding
page 204:
I began to realise that even if the
movie didn’t contain hints of Zionist culpability, and even if they weren’t
behind his assassination (which I believe), the very suggestion that Lawrence
was assassinated is certain to make some suspect the Zionists, with their
assassination record, their power, and how much they stood to benefit in the mid-1930s
by getting the bothersome Lawrence out of the way.
How could Griffin possibly believe that the Zionists were not
behind it, one might wonder. That would
doubtless be because of the other big issue, which we have not previously
mentioned, over which Lawrence was seriously at odds with British government
leadership at the time. He had been
cozying up to relatively pro-German, antiwar elements within British society,
which was a good deal stronger at the time than most people now realize.
Both Yates and Griffin mention Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF), as one of the
people Lawrence was aligning himself with, but neither offers any evidence that
there was even any communication between the two men. The nature writer and fellow WW I veteran, Henry Williamson, who was quite pro-German and antiwar, who would join the BUF in
1937, whom both Yates and Griffin also name as a Lawrence associate, is a horse
of a different color, though. Williamson
and Lawrence were quite close. In fact,
on his fateful motorcycle ride, he was on his way back from the post office in Bovington, where he had sent a telegraph in response to a
letter that he had received from Williamson a couple of days before. (That letter was among the things taken from
Lawrence’s house when government agents scoured it immediately after his death,
and it was never made public).
Perhaps it was Lawrence’s pro-German, antiwar orientation that got
him assassinated. At this point, though,
we would call Griffin’s attention to the footnote on page 90 of The
Assassination of James Forrestal in which we quote from The Forrestal
Diaries:
22 December 1945: Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph P. Kennedy, who was
Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the
war]. I asked him about his
conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938
on...Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced
England into the war.
If we believe Kennedy and Winston Churchill’s predecessor as
British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the motivation for bumping off
Lawrence traces back, then, to pretty much the same people.
Finally, one can hardly help noticing the similarities between
Lawrence’s death and that of Princess Diana in August of 1997 in Paris. Diana also died in a highly suspicious vehicular crash, in her case, as a passenger in a car that
crashed in a tunnel. If the same
organization was behind each of the “accidents,” the one that killed Diana
might have shown what they had learned from their earlier experience. There had turned out to be too many
troublesome, unexpected witnesses who had to be leaned on and silenced. One of them, Corporal Catchpole, who was
intimidated and urged to change his story about the black car the same as the
young cyclists and their fathers were leaned on, turned out to be a rare,
courageous person who would not bend. He
was very much like the witness, Patrick Knowlton, in the case of the death of
Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. Knowlton would not change his story at the
urging of his two FBI interrogators and later frightening intimidation on the
streets of Washington, DC. He insisted
that the car he had seen parked in the lot at Fort Marcy Park was different in
color and in age from Foster’s, when Foster’s body lay in the back of the park,
and he stuck to the story.
In his book, The Big Breach: From Top Secret to Maximum
Security, former MI6 agent, Richard Tomlinson, who was assigned to Sarajevo
during the Bosnian War for independence in the mid-1990s, talks of a proposal
by his supervisor “to arrange a car ‘accident’ to kill [Serbian President
Slobodan] Milosevic, possibly while attending the ICFY (International
Conference on the Former Yugoslavia) peace talks in Geneva. [The supervisor] proposed using a bright
flashing strobe gun to disorientate Milosevic’s chauffeur while the cavalcade
passed through a tunnel. The advantage
of a tunnel crash was that there would be fewer incidental witnesses and a
greater chance that the ensuing accident would be fatal.” (p. 142)
Indeed, Griffin has also noticed the similarities and devotes a
page to the matter in a section entitled “Princess Diana and T.E.
Lawrence.” It consists primarily of
eight bullet points. No. 2 is, “The
British Establishment regarded them as ‘loose cannons’ and both were under
surveillance by the Secret Service,” and no. 6 is, “Key witnesses to Diana and
Lawrence’s crash died or committed suicide soon after.”
Griffin overlooked what might well be the greatest similarity of
all, one that to my mind points the finger at the most likely perpetrator of
both assassinations. For that one, we
have to Noel Bothan’s 2018 book, The Murder of
Princess Diana: “The princess’s decision to embrace Islam could easily have
affected relations between Church and state; in Israel, it was widely believed
the union of Diana and Dodi [Al Fayed] signaled a change in world opinion in
favor of the Arabs and consequently against Israeli interests.”
And T.E. Lawrence was “Lawrence of Arabia,” after all.
*Griffin’s book has been little read, at least by Amazon.com
customers, because it has received virtually no publicity, and it is
expensive. For those who find the price
off-putting, I strongly recommend that they buy or rent his movie from Amazon,
which they can do at a fraction of the price. They can just take my word for it that he
supports the scenario painted by the movie quite well with the book.
David Martin
September 1, 2023
To comment, go to Heresy Central.
Home Page Column Column 5
Archive Contact