Criminal is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
Rania Alammar is a Saudi ex-journalist, living in Berlin since she fled her country Saudi Arabia due to the unbearable governmental oppressiveness which inflicted her own way of life but more on her people who are against the methods of the ruling of Al Saud royal family. She never dreamed she would become an author. Not about Diana anyway but her life took her to that direction and she never resisted. Alammar has released a new book on the case of Diana Princess of Wales under the title (Diana The Abduction Mystery Solved.) The book is considered to be a thorough study of different sources and several investigative books that revives another possibility of what happened to Diana Princess of Wales in 1997. It’s a new reading between the lines that opposes the published result.
Al-Matrook: I read your book (Diana: The Abduction Mystery Solved) and it aroused my interest to know why you chose this particular incident? I mean, you are from Saudi Arabia and you were a little girl when Princess Diana's incident took place.
Alammar: Doing research in any issue has nothing to do with nationality or age. A person has the right to research, study and scrutinize any issue that raises his or her interest regardless of geographical or time dimensions. In fact, I neither had previous interest in Princess Diana nor in her case. I can say that it was forgotten for me, and it was not among my interests at all. Unfortunately, we are busy with what is happening to us in our Arab region, especially because I am from Al-Qatif region of eastern Saudi Arabia, which is a region with a past history and a very troubled present because it has a sectarian majority rejected by the fanatical Saudi Wahhabi rule. We are in the face of Saudi logic, which uses religious and sectarian persecution for political reasons and vice versa.
Anyway, at the beginning of May 2010, I had a special incident, which I would like to keep its details for myself, but in general I would like to mention that someone had contacted me and mentioned the name of Diana only once in his speech. This had urged me to consider the case, as if it were a new and modern case, even though it took place 13 years ago. After a while, it became obvious to me that this issue involves a lot of hidden details that could be unveiled at another time. For me, it is far more than a criminal or political case. However, for now, I will focus only on the investigative aspect. It can be said, therefore, that there is a personal incident that gave me the strength to reread the incident. Let us say, I am not the one who chose the issue, but there are those who chose me for it.
How was the beginning of your journey?
I started to get a full look at the details of the case online. It could have been the first time I really looked at Diana's face which I had only seen once or twice. I mean, unexpectedly she has changed from nothing to something important. For sure, there are details in the life of the individual that lead him through a specific way to reach a certain point. It is a long story which I might tell one day. Therefore, the answer to your question is that I chose to pay attention to all aspects of the case as much as possible, so I was able to write the book, but I also believe that there is a destined fate which will lead me to what God has decreed, which is good in any way.
What are the information and the resources that you relied on in your book?
All the resources I have been able to obtain were from the Internet, documentaries and various books, especially the books of the Australian writer John Morgan, as well as David Cohen and other authors who have researched deeply in this case. It was also based on the official Paget report issued by the London Police in 2006 - it is accessible to the public for reading. I got most of the books during my travels to London, where I noticed that the books published about the Princess are too difficult to find in libraries, not only in the Arabic libraries but in libraries in the West in general, as well. You may find a few books about her life or things that are much less important, while there is something like a ban on any book that discusses the case as a crime. I say this based on my experience as I visited dozens and dozens of libraries in different countries. All those libraries did not sell any books on the case. What I got from these books was through the internet and through a bookstore in Harrods, which was formerly owned by Mohammed Al-Fayed, who is involved in the case and is not oppressed as he claims, based on my reading.
What is strange about the incident? If it is a criminal case, what is the motive behind the incident?
The case is not a simple traffic accident, but a criminal one, which is known among the people because of the allegations made by Mohammed Al-Fayed who alleged that what had happened, was a premeditated murder. According to my conclusion, what was strange about the case is that the main role of Mohammed Al-Fayed was to take the public opinion to this direction to divert the minds of people away from a great incident that had happened. What is evidenced in the books and other sources actually leads to a case of hiding and kidnapping, and not to a murder case. Mohammad Al- Fayed, in fact, had a strong business relationship with the royal family and Diana Spencer's family and there was a dispute between them, as I read. The allegation made by Al-Fayed was that he was oppressed because he was a Muslim and that he did not obtain the British citizenship although he was entitled to it. And he used the argument that Diana was carrying a child, which was presumably that of Imad al-Din Al-Fayed as a mere cover, whereas this pregnancy was nothing more than a feeble and utterly false argument. I wonder why the authors continued to believe this claim, which has no credible basis, and was uttered only by tongues and by untrustworthy people. Building the case as a murder case on the claim that it was because of the pregnancy is invalid, because the pregnancy itself did not happen. The issue is much deeper than this flattening and dehumanization. The real reason for Diana's abduction has many aspects, but the most important thing is that Diana started writing information and collected facts about the arms trade and who was the key beneficiary. This is the main reason for the abduction, among several less important reasons. But, such reasons were major motivation to end her constant annoyance as she was looking for certain facts that would have hurt the royal family and people associated with the arms trade. Mohammad Al-Fayed and his son Imad al-Din had strong ties with arms dealers, and this also makes them suspicious.
In your opinion, what does the book add to the truth?
The book (Diana: the Abduction Mystery Solved) does not add to the truth because it had not already appeared, but it reveals the truth for the first time. All of what we have is a continuous lie, and the details of the case could not be discovered by anyone who looked at it superficially. So people continued to believe that what happened was a murder or unlawful killing, as the British judiciary ruled in 2008. People must know that the jury was deprived by Judge Scott Baker from gaining access to many documents and testimonies that would have helped to reach a different conclusion other than murder. For example, the judge concealed the fact that samples taken from the body for medical analysis that took place in London were changed. This supports the idea of my book which is that the samples taken were from a body of a different woman. The book (Diana: the Abduction Mystery Solved) is the first book of its kind to raise the issue in this way because I arranged most of the evidence I read differently, and the result was crystal clear to me, that the case is a kidnapping case, not a murder.
What do you mean by saying another woman? What is the evidence for this assumption?
Remember that we are not talking about ordinary people. We are talking about groups that control the world and plan for each and every single piece of it. But whatever they do, they cannot hide the truth. Much of what I mentioned in my book supports my assumption that there was another woman's body, but I am content here to recount what is written in the book (How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth) by the Australian writer John Morgan. There is a chapter entitled ("Fraud at Fulham") that talks about the second autopsy performed on the corpse at the Fulham morgue in London. The first question that comes to the mind here is: Why was the autopsy done twice in one day? Here the author tells of a failure in the method of recording autopsy procedures by the morgue as a whole, especially the physician Robert Chapman, who performed the autopsy:
- As a normal procedure, any corpse should be given a number and a file should be opened carrying the same number. However, the corpse which was alleged to be of Diana was not given a special number. None of this happened, so no one can refer to any file belonging to the body. Also, the jury in this case was not informed of any morgue document belonging to the body.
- Blood samples and all other samples taken from the body, which is alleged to be of Diana, were not given any reference numbers, only the first letters of the doctor’s name.
- The samples which were sent to the toxicologist at the Charing Cross Laboratory for examination were also not marked with numbers or names related to the dead person's identity. Although the toxicologist received the samples in a police bag, the bag was not stamped with a reference number.
- Containers of blood samples received at Charing Cross Hospital did not mention the source of blood, not even in the autopsy report.
- The alleged autopsy report written by Chapman in Fulham is undated.
- Vitreous humor was recorded later as being taken from the body. In fact in an official document written during the alleged autopsy, it did not appear that it had been taken.
- It was claimed that 8 samples of different important organs were taken from the body but were not recorded nor documented by Chapman and no one else.
- No images of sample bottles or their reference marks were taken.
And I have to mention that the body, after being flown from Paris to London, appeared in a much worse condition after being received by the morgue. Though only a couple of hours before while it was in Paris a witness described the body as being very much normal. Severe wounds suddenly appeared while the real Diana did not suffer these wounds.
After all this, the writer wonders: Why did Doctor Robert Chapman, who is an expert in his field, neglect all these things while this was considered to be the most important anatomy he did in his career? Why was the jury told only about partial issues concerning the British autopsy in 2008? My comment here is that this obviously reveals only one thing which is: That all happened because the corpse did not belong to Diana and everything related to it must be hidden.
What are the obstacles you faced with publishing the book or the idea as a whole?
Of course, there are materialistic obstacles; however, thank God I managed to reach a satisfactory result despite the difficulties. But the biggest obstacle is people's intellectual mindset and prejudices. Claiming the irrelevance of this issue to the Arabs, being an Arab and Diana, a Christian English figure, and alleging that what I wrote in my book is not true according to some Arabs and even from the West, which brags about the freedom of the press and knowledge without reading a word on the case or from the book. These are just examples. However, it is worth mentioning that there are many people who have supported me without wanting to do so publicly. Everyone seems afraid and no one is blamed for this.
Also, some attempted to belittle Diana herself to discourage me from researching and trying to scrutinize the case. They just wanted me to care about the region's turbulent political conditions and horrors as if the world’s problems started only when the book was published. They protest by asking: Why did you publish it now? This is an irrational protest in my opinion. Each case has its own area and things should not be confused.
There are also some journalists who have contacted me and have been eager to publish the details of the subject but have faced obstacles from their managers. Some backed off because they knew I had worked with the Saudi opposition, and some had retreated and were cautious of the reaction of the British embassy in their countries. This step, for example, was taken by the management of a famous Gulf newspaper. They said they are afraid of the British embassy, and then I discovered the manager has a good relationship with them. This puts a question mark on the whole press business in that country. However, news about the book was spread on a lot of other news websites.
These brief examples are all seen as obstacles, but they do not deter me from looking at the case. The whole idea is entirely new to the people, and naturally they reject it because it is really too difficult to believe. It is hard for a human being to feel that he has been so deceived. I am speaking here in general, both in the case of Diana and in other issues that are irrelevant. There is a theory called the theory of Cognitive Dissonance, a mental or psychological state, which produces mental confusion for the person if he receives information that is completely contrary to what he believed perhaps throughout his life, trying to modify everything that contradicts what he believes. But I believe that truth is devoid of human opinions. I do not care who attacks the book and what he or she says, because the evidence is clear. This is a mental conclusion that I presented to a group of dignitaries, all of whom accepted it, but no one dared to talk about it publicly. Whether I am right or wrong, I have the right to ask and raise those questions anyway. These are legitimate questions that should have been answered 20 years ago.
Do you have a final word?
What invoked me to write the book is a purely human attention. I couldn't care less about the passage of time on the issue, or of Diana being from a different race, a different religion and a princess. Some should stop mentioning these as important barriers to the search for truth. All this is unimportant. That night in 1997 she was just a single woman surrounded by intelligence men from every side. This is a human condition and her royal status should not prevent us from looking at it normally. She is just like any other person who has been kidnapped. She is on par with anyone in this world who is subjected to injustice.
Read more by Rania Alammar here.