BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT GET THEIR 'ACCIDENT' VERDICT BUT THE BRITISH PEOPLE AND MILLIONS MORE ACROSS THE WORLD REJECT IT!

• Protestors outside the 'Royal' Courts of 'Justice' shout "It's all an MI5 cover-up!"

After six months - and 21 hours of deliberations - the quasi-inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed returned a verdict of unlawful killing due to the grossly negligent driving of Henri Paul and the paparazzi.

The British Establishment have got their much-needed accident verdict but still the mass majority of British people and millions more across the world reject it!

But is this 'verdict' a straight forward accident determination on the part of jury, who were from the very first day led and guided towards this by Lord 'Justice' Scott-Baker, or does it offer any hope to Mohamed Al Fayed?

The interesting development is that the jury said 'other vehicles' contributed to the fatal crash but that Henri Paul's drinking combined with a pursuing paparazzi caused the crash. In essence this is a contradiction in terms. If other 'unidentified' vehicles helped to off-road the Mercedes S280, how then does the so-called "impairment" of Henri Paul have anything to do with this?

Are the jury saying, if he wasn't drunk he would have been able to ward off the threat posed by the other vehicles attempting to off-road him? The 'verdict' then must rank as one of the most confusing in British legal history.

Quite apart from the fact that there is an enormous amount of evidence to prove that the paparazzi did not arrive in the tunnel until at least 4-7 minutes after the crash and played no part in causing the crash. The motorbikes driven by the paparazzi were not involved in the crash and therefore cannot be held responsible for causing the historic crash which killed Diana, Dodi and Henri Paul.

And in the case of Henri Paul there is also ample evidence to show that he was not "drunk as a pig" and that the blood samples could not be relied on. Indeed on the penultimate day of the quasi-inquest Scott-Baker received an email from Paris that stated the blood samples were unreliable. This email and the damning information in it could have been sent to Scott-Baker on the opening day of was not at the beginning a quasi-inquest.

The French authorities have known the blood samples taken from Henri Paul's body were not reliable for 10 years, although we reject any notion that MI6 agents or other spooks switched the samples. But we accept the expert testimony of Professor Atholl Johnson who said the samples were "cooked" to achieve high readings. In other words the samples were manipulated so as to create a false impression of Henri Paul being "drunk as a pig" as one British tabloid termed it.

And one must not forget the relieved exclamation of former Daily Mirror editor, Piers Morgan who shouted in the newsroom "there is a God" on 1 September 1997 when the French authorities first released the misleading information about Henri Paul's blood samples. And these samples were not swapped by MI6 agents, they did not need to because the French authorities working cap-in-glove with the British had the situation under control. The blood samples were cooked to achieve false high readings because the authorities and the media needed someone to blame and that man was Henri Paul.

But of even more concern is the biased direction of Lord Justice Scott-Baker who ruled out any chance of a murder verdict which would have been a disaster for Queen Elizabeth II and likely would have forced the House of Winsor to abdicate the throne. In fact, tonight the British Establishment and its loyal army of professional parasites on the public purse may feel very safe indeed. But they would be wrong to feel this because the quasi-inquest has been hugely damaging to them.

What this legal process established beyond doubt is the fact that self-confessed liar Paul Burrell made a deal with the Queen to withhold damning evidence from the jury regarding her warning to Burrell about "dark forces" at work in Britain beyond her control. And Burrell has withheld much more, a fact that he admitted on the covert tape recording made in a New York hotel room when he did not know he was being recorded....

We have also learned that the Metropolitan police 'service' lost or misplaced letters sent to Princess Diana by Prince Philip and these letters are known to have contained threats against the princess. And from Michael Faux we learned that Burrell had burned many letters from Buckingham Palace to Diana and these are thought to have been penned by Prince Philip.

And let us not forget that Lords Condon and Stevens sat on the Mishcon Note in which Diana predicted her murder in a staged road traffic 'accident'. Indeed, the Princess was warned by former British Intelligence officers that MI6 were hatching a plot to murder her.

But despite all, there is a vital ingredient missing for the British Establishment in this latest 'verdict' and that is the jury's admission that other unidentified vehicles contributed to the fatal crash. This damning fact will forever tarnish the British Establishment with accusations of murder and cover-up and so this verdict has not been a victory for them. And the investigation, which will NOT be dropped, must centre around the occupants and drivers of the unidentified vehicles and more importantly why they have never been traced, apparently at least?

At News Alliance we have uncovered new information in relation to the deaths of Princess Diana, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul and this will be published on 1 May 2008 in Simon Tomlin's new book: Princess Diana: Murder in Paris.

We will make a complete assessment of the Paget Report and the quasi-inquest in the book and analyse and explain the critical errors in the Paget 'Investigation' and detail the exact methods used by Lord Justice Scott-Baker to ensure there was no possibility of there being a murder verdict. We will continue to investigate and will not be put-off by threats, character assassination, denial of service attacks and other dirty tricks pulled by the British Establishment and their tame police and 'intelligence' services.

Which brings us to the closing point: Accidents by definition do not need to be covered-up, so why has the world witnessed nearly 11 years of lies, dirty tricks, lost documents and hate campaigns against people who refuse to accept the Establishment's various accident theories?

Perhaps we should ask the protesters outside the 'Royal' Courts of 'Justice' who greeted the verdict with cries of "It's all an MI5 cover-up!"