Alan Power - John Morgan - Fool or Fraudster. A Dissertation

JOHN MORGAN: FOOL OR FRAUDSTER

A Dissertation

Alan Power

Copyright Alan Power 2014

Probity Press Ltd

8 St Georges Street, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 1AH

www.probitypress.com

The right of Alan Power to be identified as the author of the work has been asserted herein in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved.

This eBook is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulate without the publishers prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

ISBN 978-0-957573-87-1

JOHN MORGAN: FOOL OR FRAUDSTER?

INTRODUCTION

Responding to Morgan makes me feel unclean despite only defending the truth; it seems sordid just replying to such personal abuse. But I must answer this nasty man, otherwise you may never know the truth and British enlightenment about their supposed democracy will remain muted; MI6 will win the day.

0n 29 th November 2013 John Morgan from Australia, who began releasing his boring and useless books about Diana in 2006 (The same year he claimed to begin writing them), took the opportunity to publish a criminal assault against the Princess Diana Conspiracy and concomitantly re-launch his books. He calls it a review. I believe you will see it as a vicious and felonious stratagem.

You might wonder what the differences are between Morgans books and The Princess Diana Conspiracy. Is the approach to writing one better than the other and, if so, why.

I began writing the Princess Diana Conspiracy in November 2003; nearly four years before the inquests began and when there was no guarantee there would ever be an inquest. After three years I began sending my then book to publishers but, when the intention to hold inquests was announced, I knew I would need to spend a great deal of time researching these so I spared the publishers the benefit of my further haranguing until I had an all-encompassing manuscript.

Although laborious and long this gave me a unique advantage; I could now compare the evidence that was presented at the inquests with this earlier evidence and assess the differences. There were many and always on issues that needed to remain hidden if an accident was to be established and the monarchy protected. Witnesses needed to be interviewed and this earlier evidence enabled me to ask questions about the different answers given at the inquests.

I was able to present a book in a readable style with huge amounts of evidence and to show the world what the inquests did to try and produce a satisfactory verdict. A lot of new evidence was also revealed and this was all included in the manuscript; nothing was excluded. I was rewarded by lawyers telling me that I had proved murder, hence the interest I aroused with MI6 and the consequential abuse suffered at their hands; together with help from others.

Morgans books are different. He wrote them all sitting in front of a computer screen in Brisbane, Australia and copied from the inquest transcripts. In place of facts he offers his opinions because he lacks any evidence and merely accepts the inquest transcript evidence as sacrosanct; he has nothing with which to challenge them. There is very little narrative; his considered evidence is listed in the style of a timeline of events with reports taken from various newspapers; thats it. Youre left to put everything else together. He also makes a considerable number of mistakes which he mostly ignores.

There is no abstraction, MI6 is protected and all detail is taken from corrupt inquest evidence where Morgan adds his opinions that are also taken from this same corrupt evidence because he lacks my earlier evidence. The only way to survive was to attack the Princess Diana Conspiracy, extol his useless books and lie about me; so much for his desire to achieve justice for Diana.

John Macnamaras comment to me, when I first visited Mohamed Al Fayed at Harrods, London was that Morgans books are boring and far too long. This was on November 17th 2009.

There is absolutely no comparison between my work and Morgans; this is definitive. Please do not compare me with him in research, writing styles or presentation of evidence; or at all.

Let us focus on the main issues; why did Morgan write this disgusting tirade of abuse in his so called review when it is easy to prove it is embedded with gargantuan and unadulterated lies about the The Princess Diana Conspiracy and me. Morgan says I am a liar, false, deceptive; these disgusting and false comments needed my response.

He says I manufacture and alter evidence and my book is falsely stated to have been written over a decade. This is all an insulting and abusive pack of lies as I prove in this dissertation. But on what basis does Morgan present these banal and false statements. There isnt any evidence because it isnt true so it will have come from Morgans baseless opinions or deliberate corruption; in similar vein to his books.

The different evidence I utilize is from these three/four years of work that I did (2003-2006) before Morgan began copying down inquest transcript detail in 2007 that he agrees is corrupt. This is the crucial, earlier evidence that the inquests avoided or sanitised but that I use to criticise and question the inquests position. It is what makes my book so dangerous because I have the means to challenge the inquests and why MI6 want it in the bin. Morgan calls this evidence my Power Constructs because he doesnt possess it so he says its false.

With the advent of The Princess Diana Conspiracy Morgans entourage saw an opportunity to use my books success to advertise their failed rubbish; attack me and gain some attention or remain in obscurity. They knew The Princess Diana Conspiracy achieves what Morgan set out to achieve but miserably failed to do. Morgans books havent withstood scrutiny and you would continue to reject them as you have for eight years, but he might entice people into buying some. If police challenge him, he will claim honest mistakes and hope to remain unscathed. But Morgan is either oblivious to his books being useless or is keen to assist MI6 whose prime objective is to destroy me and my book, thus denying justice for Diana. He also doesnt realise that his books dont improve with age but become even less relevant.

(Morgans entourage even twist the statements of others to their advantage. Michael Mansfield was asked by John Macnamara whether he could give any helpful comments re Morgans books and Mohamed Al Fayed is a major client of Mansfield so this answer was clever. Mansfield described them as a magnum opus but without reference to the efficacy of their content. They only contain flawed inquest evidence and Morgans opinions but it was rather clever to say they are a magnum opus because all that this means in pure Latin is, Large Work; they are certainly that.

Mohamed Al Fayed also said that at least Morgan was trying which is more than the British or French police were doing; is that the same meaning that you understand they claim. Everything is perverted to this monsters benefit by his team.)

The majority of my books interposed errors were corrected in a revised eBook two weeks before Morgans corrupt review was even published (please later note the reasons for these errors). He needed to persuade you there was justification for writing his vile tirade of abuse in order to be exculpated from your denunciation. He knew people wouldnt tolerate the abuse of those who genuinely seek justice for Diana. This attack from Morgans entourage reduces the effect that my book has on seriously disturbing the establishment; he has no interest in justice but seeks, with his co-conspirators, to build his bank balance. But as you read, please follow the logic that this attack embraces yet another facet; it reeks of MI6 and their sordid ways.