Thursday, 10 July 2014

Accession : She Won't Go Quietly

"I used to want to save the world. This beautiful place. 

But I knew so little then. 

It is a land of beauty and wonder, worth cherishing in every way. 

But the closer you get, the more you see the great darkness simmering within. 

And Mankind? 

Mankind is another story altogether."


The Panorama Interview

This is a transcript of the BBC1 Panorama interview with the Princess of Wales, broadcast in November 1995

MARTIN BASHIR: Your Royal Highness, how prepared were you for the pressures that came with marrying into the Royal Family?

DIANA: At the age of 19, you always think you're prepared for everything, and you think you have the knowledge of what's coming ahead. But although I was daunted at the prospect at the time, I felt I had the support of my husband-to-be.

BASHIR: What were the expectations that you had for married life?

DIANA: I think like any marriage, specially when you've had divorced parents like myself, you'd want to try even harder to make it work and you don't want to fall back into a pattern that you've seen happen in your own family.

"I want to reassure all those people who have loved me and supported me throughout the last 15 years that I'd never let them down."

I desperately wanted it to work, I desperately loved my husband and I wanted to share everything together, and I thought that we were a very good team.

BASHIR: How aware were you of the significance of what had happened to you? After all, you'd become Princess of Wales, ultimately with a view to becoming Queen.

DIANA: I wasn't daunted, and am not daunted by the responsibilities that that role creates. It was a challenge, it is a challenge.

As for becoming Queen, it's, it was never at the forefront of my mind when I married my husband: it was a long way off that thought.

The most daunting aspect was the media attention, because my husband and I, we were told when we got engaged that the media would go quietly, and it didn't; and then when we were married they said it would go quietly and it didn't; and then it started to focus very much on me, and I seemed to be on the front of a newspaper every single day, which is an isolating experience, and the higher the media put you, place you, is the bigger the drop.

And I was very aware of that.

BASHIR: How did you handle the transition from being Lady Diana Spencer to the most photographed, the most talked-about, woman in the world?

DIANA: Well, it took a long time to understand why people were so interested in me, but I assumed it was because my husband had done a lot of wonderful work leading up to our marriage and our relationship.

But then I, during the years you see yourself as a good product that sits on a shelf and sells well, and people make a lot of money out of you.

BASHIR: It's been suggested in some newspapers that you were left largely to cope with your new status on your own. Do you feel that was your experience?

DIANA: Yes I do, on reflection. But then here was a situation which hadn't ever happened before in history, in the sense that the media were everywhere, and here was a fairy story that everybody wanted to work.

And so it was, it was isolating, but it was also a situation where you couldn't indulge in feeling sorry for yourself: you had to either sink or swim. And you had to learn that very fast.

BASHIR: And what did you do?

DIANA: I swam. We went to Alice Springs, to Australia, and we went and did a walkabout, and I said to my husband: `What do I do now?'

And he said, `Go over to the other side and speak to them.' I said, `I can't, I just can't.'

He said, `Well, you've got to do it.' And he went off and did his bit, and I went off and did my bit. It practically finished me off there and then, and I suddenly realised - I went back to our hotel room and realised the impact that, you know, I had to sort myself out.

We had a six-week tour - four weeks in Australia and two weeks in New Zealand - and by the end, when we flew back from New Zealand, I was a different person. I realised the sense of duty, the level of intensity of interest, and the demanding role I now found myself in.

BASHIR: Were you overwhelmed by the pressure from people initially?

DIANA: Yes, I was very daunted because as far as I was concerned I was a fat, chubby, 20-year-old, 21-year-old, and I couldn't understand the level of interest.

BASHIR: At this early stage, would you say that you were happily married?

DIANA: Very much so. But, the pressure on us both as a couple with the media was phenomenal, and misunderstood by a great many people.

We'd be going round Australia, for instance, and all you could hear was, oh, she's on the other side. Now, if you're a man, like my husband a proud man, you mind about that if you hear it every day for four weeks. And you feel low about it, instead of feeling happy and sharing it.

BASHIR: When you say `she's on the other side', what do you mean?

DIANA: Well, they weren't on the right side to wave at me or to touch me.

BASHIR: So they were expressing a preference even then for you rather than your husband?

DIANA: Yes - which I felt very uncomfortable with, and I felt it was unfair, because I wanted to share.

BASHIR: But were you flattered by the media attention particularly?

DIANA: No, not particularly, because with the media attention came a lot of jealousy, a great deal of complicated situations arose because of that.

BASHIR: At this early stage in your marriage, what role did you see for yourself as Princess of Wales? Did you have an idea of the role that you might like to fulfil?

DIANA: No, I was very confused by which area I should go into. Then I found myself being more and more involved with people who were rejected by society - with, I'd say, drug addicts, alcoholism, battered this, battered that - and I found an affinity there.

And I respected very much the honesty I found on that level with people I met, because in hospices, for instance, when people are dying they're much more open and more vulnerable, and much more real than other people. And I appreciated that.

BASHIR: Had the Palace given any thought to the role that you might have as Princess of Wales?

DIANA: No, no one sat me down with a piece of paper and said: `This is what is expected of you.' But there again, I'm lucky enough in the fact that I have found my role, and I'm very conscious of it, and I love being with people.

BASHIR: So you very much created the role that you would pursue for yourself really? That was what you did?

DIANA: I think so. I remember when I used to sit on hospital beds and hold people's hands, people used to be sort of shocked because they said they'd never seen this before, and to me it was quite a normal thing to do.

And when I saw the reassurance that an action like that gave, I did it everywhere, and will always do that.

BASHIR: It wasn't long after the wedding before you became pregnant. What was your reaction when you learnt that the child was a boy?

DIANA: Enormous relief. I felt the whole country was in labour with me. Enormous relief.

But I had actually known William was going to be a boy, because the scan had shown it, so it caused no surprise.

BASHIR: Had you always wanted to have a family?

DIANA: Yes, I came from a family where there were four of us, so we had enormous fun there.

And then William and Harry arrived - fortunately two boys, it would have been a little tricky if it had been two girls - but that in itself brings the responsibilities of bringing them up, William's future being as it is, and Harry like a form of a back-up in that aspect.

BASHIR: How did the rest of the Royal Family react when they learnt that the child that you were to have was going to be a boy?

DIANA: Well, everybody was thrilled to bits. It had been quite a difficult pregnancy - I hadn't been very well throughout it - so by the time William arrived it was a great relief because it was all peaceful again, and I was well for a time.

Then I was unwell with post-natal depression, which no one ever discusses, post-natal depression, you have to read about it afterwards, and that in itself was a bit of a difficult time. You'd wake up in the morning feeling you didn't want to get out of bed, you felt misunderstood, and just very, very low in yourself.

BASHIR: Was this completely out of character for you?

DIANA: Yes, very much so. I never had had a depression in my life.

But then when I analysed it I could see that the changes I'd made in the last year had all caught up with me, and my body had said: `We want a rest.'

BASHIR: So what treatment did you actually receive?

DIANA: I received a great deal of treatment, but I knew in myself that actually what I needed was space and time to adapt to all the different roles that had come my way. I knew I could do it, but I needed people to be patient and give me the space to do it.

BASHIR: When you say all of the different roles that had come your way, what do you mean?

DIANA: Well, it was a very short space of time: in the space of a year my whole life had changed, turned upside down, and it had its wonderful moments, but it also had challenging moments. And I could see where the rough edges needed to be smoothed.

BASHIR: What was the family's reaction to your post-natal depression?

DIANA: Well maybe I was the first person ever to be in this family who ever had a depression or was ever openly tearful. And obviously that was daunting, because if you've never seen it before how do you support it?

BASHIR: What effect did the depression have on your marriage?

DIANA: Well, it gave everybody a wonderful new label - Diana's unstable and Diana's mentally unbalanced. And unfortunately that seems to have stuck on and off over the years.

BASHIR: Are you saying that that label stuck within your marriage?

DIANA: I think people used it and it stuck, yes.

BASHIR: According to press reports, it was suggested that it was around this time things became so difficult that you actually tried to injure yourself.

DIANA: Mmm. When no one listens to you, or you feel no one's listening to you, all sorts of things start to happen.

For instance you have so much pain inside yourself that you try and hurt yourself on the outside because you want help, but it's the wrong help you're asking for. People see it as crying wolf or attention-seeking, and they think because you're in the media all the time you've got enough attention, inverted commas.

But I was actually crying out because I wanted to get better in order to go forward and continue my duty and my role as wife, mother, Princess of Wales.

So yes, I did inflict upon myself. I didn't like myself, I was ashamed because I couldn't cope with the pressures.

BASHIR: What did you actually do?

DIANA: Well, I just hurt my arms and my legs; and I work in environments now where I see women doing similar things and I'm able to understand completely where they're coming from.

BASHIR: What was your husband's reaction to this, when you began to injure yourself in this way?

DIANA: Well, I didn't actually always do it in front of him. But obviously anyone who loves someone would be very concerned about it.

BASHIR: Did he understand what was behind the physical act of hurting yourself, do you think?

DIANA: No, but then not many people would have taken the time to see that.

BASHIR: Were you able to admit that you were in fact unwell, or did you feel compelled simply to carry on performing as the Princess of Wales?

DIANA: I felt compelled to perform. Well, when I say perform, I was compelled to go out and do my engagements and not let people down and support them and love them.

And in a way by being out in public they supported me, although they weren't aware just how much healing they were giving me, and it carried me through.

BASHIR: But did you feel that you had to maintain the public image of a successful Princess of Wales?

DIANA: Yes I did, yes I did.

BASHIR: The depression was resolved, as you say, but it was subsequently reported that you suffered bulimia. Is that true?

DIANA: Yes, I did. I had bulimia for a number of years. And that's like a secret disease.

You inflict it upon yourself because your self-esteem is at a low ebb, and you don't think you're worthy or valuable. You fill your stomach up four or five times a day - some do it more - and it gives you a feeling of comfort.

It's like having a pair of arms around you, but it's temporarily, temporary. Then you're disgusted at the bloatedness of your stomach, and then you bring it all up again.

And it's a repetitive pattern which is very destructive to yourself.

BASHIR: How often would you do that on a daily basis?

DIANA: Depends on the pressures going on. If I'd been on what I call an awayday, or I'd been up part of the country all day, I'd come home feeling pretty empty, because my engagements at that time would be to do with people dying, people very sick, people's marriage problems, and I'd come home and it would be very difficult to know how to comfort myself having been comforting lots of other people, so it would be a regular pattern to jump into the fridge.

It was a symptom of what was going on in my marriage.

I was crying out for help, but giving the wrong signals, and people were using my bulimia as a coat on a hanger: they decided that was the problem - Diana was unstable.

BASHIR: Instead of looking behind the symptom at the cause.

DIANA: Uh,uh.

BASHIR: What was the cause?

DIANA: The cause was the situation where my husband and I had to keep everything together because we didn't want to disappoint the public, and yet obviously there was a lot of anxiety going on within our four walls.

BASHIR: Do you mean between the two of you?

DIANA: Uh,uh.

BASHIR: And so you subjected yourself to this phase of bingeing and vomiting?

DIANA: You could say the word subjected, but it was my escape mechanism, and it worked, for me, at that time.

BASHIR: Did you seek help from any other members of the Royal Family?

DIANA: No. You, you have to know that when you have bulimia you're very ashamed of yourself and you hate yourself, so - and people think you're wasting food - so you don't discuss it with people.

And the thing about bulimia is your weight always stays the same, whereas with anorexia you visibly shrink. So you can pretend the whole way through. There's no proof.

BASHIR: When you say people would think you were wasting food, did anybody suggest that to you?

DIANA: Oh yes, a number of times.

BASHIR: What was said?

DIANA: Well, it was just, `I suppose you're going to waste that food later on?' And that was pressure in itself. And of course I would, because it was my release valve.

BASHIR: How long did this bulimia go on for?

DIANA: A long time, a long time. But I'm free of it now.

BASHIR: Two years, three years?

DIANA: Mmm. A little bit more than that.

BASHIR: According to reports in the national press, it was at around this time that you began to experience difficulties in your marriage, in your relationship to the Prince of Wales. Is that true?

DIANA: Well, we were a newly-married couple, so obviously we had those pressures too, and we had the media, who were completely fascinated by everything we did.

And it was difficult to share that load, because I was the one who was always pitched out front, whether it was my clothes, what I said, what my hair was doing, everything - which was a pretty dull subject, actually, and it's been exhausted over the years - when actually what we wanted to be, what we wanted supported was our work, and as a team.

BASHIR: What effect did the press interest in you have on your marriage?

DIANA: It made it very difficult, because for a situation where it was a couple working in the same job - we got out the same car, we shook the same hand, my husband did the speeches, I did the handshaking - so basically we were a married couple doing the same job, which is very difficult for anyone, and more so if you ve got all the attention on you.

We struggled a bit with it, it was very difficult; and then my husband decided that we do separate engagements, which was a bit sad for me, because I quite liked the company.

But, there again, I didn't have the choice.

BASHIR: So it wasn't at your request that you did that on your own?

DIANA: Not at all, no.

BASHIR: The biography of the Prince of Wales written by Jonathan Dimbleby, which as you know was published last year, suggested that you and your husband had very different outlooks, very different interests. Would you agree with that?

DIANA: No. I think we had a great deal of interest - we both liked people, both liked country life, both loved children, work in the cancer field, work in hospices.

But I was portrayed in the media at that time, if I remember rightly, as someone, because I hadn't passed any O-levels and taken any A-levels, I was stupid.

And I made the grave mistake once of saying to a child I was thick as a plank, in order to ease the child's nervousness, which it did. But that headline went all round the world, and I rather regret saying it.

BASHIR: The Prince of Wales, in the biography, is described as a great thinker, a man with a tremendous range of interests. What did he think of your interests?

DIANA: Well, I don't think I was allowed to have any. I think that I've always been the 18-year-old girl he got engaged to, so I don't think I've been given any credit for growth. And, my goodness, I've had to grow.

BASHIR: Explain what you mean when you say that.

DIANA: Well, er...

BASHIR: When you say, when you say you were never given any credit, what do you mean?

DIANA: Well anything good I ever did nobody ever said a thing, never said, `well done', or `was it OK?' But if I tripped up, which invariably I did, because I was new at the game, a ton of bricks came down on me.

BASHIR: How did you cope with that?

DIANA: Well obviously there were lots of tears, and one could dive into the bulimia, into escape.

BASHIR: Some people would find that difficult to believe, that you were left so much to cope on your own, and that the description you give suggests that your relationship with your husband was not very good even at that early stage.

DIANA: Well, we had unique pressures put upon us, and we both tried our hardest to cover them up, but obviously it wasn't to be.

BASHIR: Around 1986, again according to the biography written by Jonathan Dimbleby about your husband, he says that your husband renewed his relationship with Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles. Were you aware of that?

DIANA: Yes I was, but I wasn't in a position to do anything about it.

BASHIR: What evidence did you have that their relationship was continuing even though you were married?

DIANA: Oh, a woman's instinct is a very good one.

BASHIR: Is that all?

DIANA: Well, I had, obviously I had knowledge of it.

BASHIR: From staff?

DIANA: Well, from people who minded and cared about our marriage, yes.

BASHIR: What effect did that have on you?

DIANA: Pretty devastating. Rampant bulimia, if you can have rampant bulimia, and just a feeling of being no good at anything and being useless and hopeless and failed in every direction.

BASHIR: And with a husband who was having a relationship with somebody else?

DIANA: With a husband who loved someone else, yes.

BASHIR: You really thought that?

DIANA: Uh,uh. I didn't think that, I knew it.

BASHIR: How did you know it?

DIANA: By the change of behavioural pattern in my husband; for all sorts of reasons that a woman's instinct produces; you just know.

It was already difficult, but it became increasingly difficult.

BASHIR: In the practical sense, how did it become difficult?

DIANA: Well, people were - when I say people I mean friends, on my husband's side - were indicating that I was again unstable, sick, and should be put in a home of some sort in order to get better. I was almost an embarrassment.

BASHIR: Do you think he really thought that?

DIANA: Well, there's no better way to dismantle a personality than to isolate it.

BASHIR: So you were isolated?

DIANA: Uh,uh, very much so.

BASHIR: Do you think Mrs Parker-Bowles was a factor in the breakdown of your marriage?

DIANA: Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.

BASHIR: You're effectively living separate lives, yet in public there's this appearance of this happily married royal couple. How was this regarded by the Royal Family?

DIANA: I think everybody was very anxious because they could see there were complications but didn't want to interfere, but were there, made it known that they were there if required.

BASHIR: Do you think it was accepted that one could live effectively two lives - one in private and one in public?

DIANA: No, because again the media was very interested about our set-up, inverted commas; when we went abroad we had separate apartments, albeit we were on the same floor, so of course that was leaked, and that caused complications.

But Charles and I had our duty to perform, and that was paramount.

BASHIR: So in a sense you coped with this, these two lives, because of your duty?

DIANA: Uh,uh. And we were a very good team in public; albeit what was going on in private, we were a good team.

BASHIR: Some people would find that difficult to reconcile.

DIANA: Well, that's their problem. I know what it felt like.

BASHIR: The Queen described 1992 as her `annus horribilis', and it was in that year that Andrew Morton's book about you was published. Did you ever meet Andrew Morton or personally help him with the book?

DIANA: I never met him, no.

BASHIR: Did you ever personally assist him with the writing of his book?

DIANA: A lot of people saw the distress that my life was in, and they felt it was a supportive thing to help in the way that they did.

BASHIR: Did you allow your friends, your close friends, to speak to Andrew Morton?

DIANA: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

BASHIR: Why?

DIANA: I was at the end of my tether. I was desperate.

I think I was so fed up with being seen as someone who was a basket-case, because I am a very strong person and I know that causes complications in the system that I live in.

BASHIR: How would a book change that?

DIANA: I don't know. Maybe people have a better understanding, maybe there's a lot of women out there who suffer on the same level but in a different environment, who are unable to stand up for themselves because their self-esteem is cut into two. I don't know.

BASHIR: What effect do you think the book had on your husband and the Royal Family?

DIANA: I think they were shocked and horrified and very disappointed.

BASHIR: Can you understand why?

DIANA: I think Mr Dimbleby's book was a shock to a lot of people and disappointment as well.

BASHIR: What effect did Andrew Morton's book have on your relationship with the Prince of Wales?

DIANA: Well, what had been hidden - or rather what we thought had been hidden - then became out in the open and was spoken about on a daily basis, and the pressure was for us to sort ourselves out in some way.

Were we going to stay together or were we going to separate? And the word separation and divorce kept coming up in the media on a daily basis.

BASHIR: What happened after the book was published?

DIANA: Well, we struggled along. We did our engagements together. And in our private life it was obviously turbulent.

BASHIR: Did things come to a head?

DIANA: Yes, slowly, yes. My husband and I, we discussed it very calmly.

We could see what the public were requiring. They wanted clarity of a situation that was obviously becoming intolerable.

BASHIR: So what happened?

DIANA: So we got the lawyers together, we discussed separation - obviously there were a lot of people to discuss it with: the Prime Minister, Her Majesty - and then it moved itself, so to speak.

BASHIR: By the December of that year, as you say, you'd agreed to a legal separation. What were your feelings at the time?

DIANA: Deep, deep, profound sadness. Because we had struggled to keep it going, but obviously we'd both run out of steam.

And in a way I suppose it could have been a relief for us both that we'd finally made our minds up. But my husband asked for the separation and I supported it.

BASHIR: It was not your idea?

DIANA: No. Not at all. I come from a divorced background, and I didn't want to go into that one again.

BASHIR: What happened next?

DIANA: We, I asked my husband if we could put the announcement out before the children came back from school for Christmas holidays because they were protected in the school they were at.

And he did that, and it came out on December 9th. I was on an engagement up north.

I heard it on the radio, and it was just very, very sad. Really sad. The fairy tale had come to an end, and most importantly our marriage had taken a turn, different turn.

BASHIR: Did you tell your children that you were going to separate?

DIANA: Yes. I went down a week beforehand, and explained to them what was happening.

And they took it as children do - lots of questions - and I hoped I was able to reassure them. But, who knows?

BASHIR: What effect do you think the announcement had on them?

DIANA: I think the announcement had a huge effect on me and Charles, really, and the children were very much out of it, in the sense that they were tucked away at school.

BASHIR: Once the separation had occurred, moving to 1993, what happened during that period?

DIANA: People's agendas changed overnight. I was now separated wife of the Prince of Wales, I was a problem, I was a liability (seen as), and how are we going to deal with her? This hasn't happened before.

BASHIR: Who was asking those questions?

DIANA: People around me, people in this environment, and ...

BASHIR: The royal household?

DIANA: People in my environment, yes, yes.

BASHIR: And they began to see you as a problem?

DIANA: Yes, very much so, uh,uh.

BASHIR: How did that show itself?

DIANA: By visits abroad being blocked, by things that had come naturally my way being stopped, letters going, that got lost, and various things.

BASHIR: So despite the fact that your interest was always to continue with your duties, you found that your duties were being held from you?

DIANA: Yes. Everything changed after we separated, and life became very difficult then for me.

BASHIR: Who was behind that change?

DIANA: Well, my husband's side were very busy stopping me.

BASHIR: What was your reaction when news broke of allegedly a telephone conversation between you and Mr James Gilbey having been recorded?

DIANA: I felt very protective about James because he'd been a very good friend to me and was a very good friend to me, and I couldn't bear that his life was going to be messed up because he had the connection with me.

And that worried me. I'm very protective about my friends.

BASHIR: Did you have the alleged telephone conversation?

DIANA: Yes we did, absolutely we did. Yup, we did.

BASHIR: On that tape, Mr Gilbey expresses his affection for you. Was that transcript accurate?

DIANA: Yes. I mean he is a very affectionate person.

But the implications of that conversation were that we'd had an adulterous relationship, which was not true.

BASHIR: Have you any idea how that conversation came to be published in the national press?

DIANA: No, but it was done to harm me in a serious manner, and that was the first time I'd experienced what it was like to be outside the net, so to speak, and not be in the family.

BASHIR: What do you think the purpose was behind it?

DIANA: It was to make the public change their attitude towards me.

It was, you know, if we are going to divorce, my husband would hold more cards than I would - it was very much a poker game, chess game.

BASHIR: There were also a series of telephone calls which allegedly were made by you to a Mr Oliver Hoare. Did you make what were described as nuisance phone calls?

DIANA: I was reputed to have made 300 telephone calls in a very short space of time which, bearing in mind my lifestyle at that time, made me a very busy lady.

No, I didn't, I didn't.

But that again was a huge move to discredit me, and very nearly did me in, the injustice of it, because I did my own homework on that subject, and consequently found out that a young boy had done most of them.

But I read that I'd done them all. Mr Hoare told me that his lines were being tapped by the local police station. He said, you know, don't ring. So I didn't, but somebody clearly did.

BASHIR: Had you made any of those calls at all?

DIANA: I used to, yes, I had rung up, yes.

BASHIR: Once, twice, three times?

DIANA: I don't know. Over a period of six to nine months, a few times, but certainly not in an obsessive manner, no.

BASHIR: Do you really believe that a campaign was being waged against you?

DIANA: Yes I did, absolutely, yeah.

BASHIR: Why?

DIANA: I was the separated wife of the Prince of Wales, I was a problem, fullstop. Never happened before, what do we do with her?

BASHIR: Can't we pack her off to somewhere quietly rather than campaign against her?

DIANA: She won't go quietly, that's the problem. I'll fight to the end, because I believe that I have a role to fulfil, and I've got two children to bring up.

BASHIR: By the end of 1993 you had suffered persistent difficulties with the press - these phone conversations were made public - and you decided to withdraw from public life. Why did you do that?

DIANA: The pressure was intolerable then, and my job, my work was being affected.

I wanted to give 110% to my work, and I could only give 50. I was constantly tired, exhausted, because the pressure was just, it was so cruel.

So I thought the only way to do it was to stand up and make a speech and extract myself before I started disappointing and not carrying out my work.

It was my decision to make that speech because I owed it to the public to say that, you know, `thank you. I'm disappearing for a bit, but I'll come back.'

BASHIR: It wasn't very long before you did come back, of course.

DIANA: Well, I don't know. I mean, I did a lot of work, well, underground, without any media attention, so I never really stopped doing it.

I just didn't do every day out and about, I just couldn't do it.

You know, the campaign at that point was being successful, but it did surprise the people who were causing the grief - it did surprise them when I took myself out of the game.

They hadn't expected that. And I'm a great believer that you should always confuse the enemy.

BASHIR: Who was the enemy?

DIANA: Well, the enemy was my husband's department, because I always got more publicity, my work was more, was discussed much more than him.

And, you know, from that point of view I understand it. But I was doing good things, and I wanted to good things. I was never going to hurt anyone, I was never going to let anyone down.

BASHIR: But you really believe that it was out of jealousy that they wanted to undermine you?

DIANA: I think it was out of fear, because here was a strong woman doing her bit, and where was she getting her strength from to continue?

BASHIR: What was your reaction to your husband's disclosure to Jonathan Dimbleby that he had in fact committed adultery?

DIANA: Well, I was totally unaware of the content of the book, and actually saw it on the news that night that it had come out, and my first concern was to the children, because they were able to understand what was coming out, and I wanted to protect them.

But I was pretty devastated myself. But then I admired the honesty, because it takes a lot to do that.

BASHIR: In what sense?

DIANA: Well, to be honest about a relationship with someone else, in his position - that's quite something.

BASHIR: How did you handle this with the children?

DIANA: I went to the school and put it to William, particularly, that if you find someone you love in life you must hang on to it and look after it, and if you were lucky enough to find someone who loved you then one must protect it.

William asked me what had been going on, and could I answer his questions, which I did.

He said, was that the reason why our marriage had broken up?

And I said, well, there were three of us in this marriage, and the pressure of the media was another factor, so the two together were very difficult.

But although I still loved Papa I couldn't live under the same roof as him, and likewise with him.

BASHIR: What effect do you think it had on Prince William?

DIANA: Well, he's a child that's a deep thinker, and we don't know for a few years how it's gone in. But I put it in gently, without resentment or any anger.

BASHIR: Looking back now, do you feel at all responsible for the difficulties in your marriage?

DIANA: Mmm. I take full responsibility, I take some responsibility that our marriage went the way it did. I'll take half of it, but I won't take any more than that, because it takes two to get in this situation.

BASHIR: But you do bear some of the responsibility?

DIANA: Absolutely, we both made mistakes.

BASHIR: Another book that was published recently concerned a Mr James Hewitt, in which he claimed to have had a very close relationship with you, from about 1989 I think. What was the nature of your relationship?

DIANA: He was a great friend of mine at a very difficult, yet another difficult time, and he was always there to support me, and I was absolutely devastated when this book appeared, because I trusted him, and because, again, I worried about the reaction on my children.

And, yes, there was factual evidence in the book, but a lot of it was, comes from another world, didn't equate to what happened.

BASHIR: What do you mean?

DIANA: Well, there was a lot of fantasy in that book, and it was very distressing for me that a friend of mine, who I had trusted, made money out of me. I really minded about that.

And he'd rung me up 10 days before it arrived in the bookshops to tell me that there was nothing to worry about, and I believed him, stupidly.

And then when it did arrive the first thing I did was rush down to talk to my children. And William produced a box of chocolates and said, `Mummy, I think you've been hurt. These are to make you smile again.' So...

BASHIR: Did your relationship go beyond a close friendship?

DIANA: Yes it did, yes.

BASHIR: Were you unfaithful?

DIANA: Yes, I adored him. Yes, I was in love with him. But I was very let down.

BASHIR: How would you describe your life now? You do live very much on your own, don't you?

DIANA: Yes, I don't mind that actually. You know, people think that at the end of the day a man is the only answer. Actually, a fulfilling job is better for me. (LAUGHTER)

BASHIR: What do you mean by that?

DIANA: Well, I mean any gentleman that's been past my door, we've instantly been put together in the media and all hell's broken loose, so that's been very tough on the male friends I've had, and obviously from my point of view.

BASHIR: Does that mean that you feel that for the rest of your life you'll have to be on your own?

DIANA: No, I'm not really on my own. I've got wonderful friends, I've got my boys, I've got my work.

It's just by living at Kensington Palace obviously it is a little bit isolating, but, you know, maybe we all feel like that.

BASHIR: How do you feel about the way the press behaves towards you now?

DIANA: I still to this day find the interest daunting and phenomenal, because I actually don't like being the centre of attention.

When I have my public duties, I understand that when I get out the car I'm being photographed, but actually it's now when I go out of my door, my front door, I'm being photographed.

I never know where a lens is going to be.

A normal day would be followed by four cars; a normal day would come back to my car and find six freelance photographers jumping around me.

Some people would say, Well, if you had a policeman it would make it easier. It doesn't at all.

They've decided that I'm still a product, after 15, 16 years, that sells well, and they all shout at me, telling me that: `Oh, come on, Di, look up. If you give us a picture I can get my children to a better school.'

And, you know, you can laugh it off. But you get that the whole time. It's quite difficult.

BASHIR: Some people would say that in the early years of your marriage you were partly responsible for encouraging the press interest - you danced with people like Wayne Sleep, you seemed to enjoy it, you had a very good and warm relationship.

Do you feel any responsibility for the way the press have behaved towards you?

DIANA: I've never encouraged the media. There was a relationship which worked before, but now I can't tolerate it because it's become abusive and it's harassment.

But I don't want to be seen to be indulging in self-pity. I'm not.

I understand they have a job to do. You could equate it to a soap opera really. It goes on and on and on, and the story never changes.

And each time one enjoys oneself - albeit it's in a different situation - you have to pay for it, because people criticise, which comes with the patch, as I said previously.

But I am a free spirit - unfortunately for some.

BASHIR: But here at Kensington Palace, are you isolated?

DIANA: Well I am by the nature of my situation, yes, but I don't feel sorry for myself in any way.

I've got my work that I choose to do, and I've got my boys, and I've got lots of opportunities coming up in the next year - visits abroad: I'm about to go to Argentina, which I'm very happy with, and hope very much to continue the good relationship that's now been adopted between the two countries. I hope I can be of help there.

BASHIR: What role do you see for yourself in the future?

DIANA: I'd like to be an ambassador for this country. I'd like to represent this country abroad.

As I have all this media interest, let's not just sit in this country and be battered by it. Let's take them, these people, out to represent this country and the good qualities of it abroad.

When I go abroad we've got 60 to 90 photographers, just from this country, coming with me, so let's use it in a productive way, to help this country.

BASHIR: You say you feel that your future is as some form of ambassador. At whose behest is that? On what grounds do you feel that you have the right to think of yourself as an ambassador.

DIANA: I've been in a privileged position for 15 years. I've got tremendous knowledge about people and how to communicate. I've learnt that, I've got it, and I want to use it.

And when I look at people in public life, I'm not a political animal but I think the biggest disease this world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved, and I know that I can give love for a minute, for half an hour, for a day, for a month, but I can give - I'm very happy to do that and I want to do that.

BASHIR: Do you think that the British people are happy with you in your role?

DIANA: I think the British people need someone in public life to give affection, to make them feel important, to support them, to give them light in their dark tunnels.

I see it as a possibly unique role, and yes, I've had difficulties, as everybody has witnessed over the years, but let's now use the knowledge I've gathered to help other people in distress.

BASHIR: Do you think you can?

DIANA: I know I can, I know I can, yes.

BASHIR: Up until you came into this family, the monarchy seemed to enjoy an unquestioned position at the heart of British life. Do you feel that you're at all to blame for the fact that survival of the monarchy is now a question that people are asking?

DIANA: No, I don't feel blame. I mean, once or twice I've heard people say to me that, you know, `Diana's out to destroy the monarchy', which has bewildered me, because why would I want to destroy something that is my children's future.

I will fight for my children on any level in order for them to be happy and have peace of mind and carry out their duties.

But I think what concerns me most of all about how people discuss the monarchy is they become indifferent, and I think that is a problem, and I think that should be sorted out, yes.

BASHIR: When you say indifferent, what do you mean?

DIANA: They don't care. People don't care any more. They've been so force-fed with marital problems, whatever, whatever, whatever, that they're fed up.

I'm fed up of reading about it. I'm in it, so God knows what people out there must think.

BASHIR: Do you think the monarchy needs to adapt and to change in order to survive?

DIANA: I understand that change is frightening for people, especially if there's nothing to go to. It's best to stay where you are. I understand that.

But I do think that there are a few things that could change, that would alleviate this doubt, and sometimes complicated relationship between monarchy and public. I think they could walk hand in hand, as opposed to be so distant.

BASHIR: What are you doing to try and effect some kind of change?

DIANA: Well, with William and Harry, for instance, I take them round homelessness projects, I ve taken William and Harry to people dying of Aids - albeit I told them it was cancer - I ve taken the children to all sorts of areas where I'm not sure anyone of that age in this family has been before.

And they have a knowledge - they may never use it, but the seed is there, and I hope it will grow because knowledge is power.

BASHIR: What are you hoping that that experience for your children - what impact that experience will have on your children?

DIANA: I want them to have an understanding of people's emotions, people's insecurities, people's distress, and people's hopes and dreams.

BASHIR: What kind of monarchy do you anticipate?

DIANA: I would like a monarchy that has more contact with its people - and I don't mean by riding round bicycles and things like that, but just having a more in-depth understanding.

And I don't say that as a criticism to the present monarchy: I just say that as what I see and hear and feel on a daily basis in the role I have chosen for myself.

BASHIR: There's a lot of discussion at the moment about how matters between yourself and the Prince of Wales will be resolved. There's even the suggestion of a divorce between you. What are your thoughts about that?

DIANA: I don't want a divorce, but obviously we need clarity on a situation that has been of enormous discussion over the last three years in particular.

So all I say to that is that I await my husband's decision of which way we are all going to go.

BASHIR: If he wished a divorce to go through, would you accept that?

DIANA: I would obviously discuss it with him, but up to date neither of us has discussed this subject, though the rest of the world seems to have.

BASHIR: Would it be your wish to divorce?

DIANA: No, it's not my wish.

BASHIR: Why? Wouldn't that resolve matters?

DIANA: Why would it resolve matters?

BASHIR: It would provide the clarity that you talk about, it would resolve matters as far as the public are concerned perhaps.

DIANA: Yes, but what about the children? Our boys - that's what matters, isn't it?

BASHIR: Do you think you will ever be Queen?

DIANA: No, I don't, no.

BASHIR: Why do you think that?

DIANA: I'd like to be a queen of people's hearts, in people's hearts, but I don't see myself being Queen of this country. I don't think many people will want me to be Queen.

Actually, when I say many people I mean the establishment that I married into, because they have decided that I'm a non-starter.

BASHIR: Why do you think they've decided that?

DIANA: Because I do things differently, because I don't go by a rule book, because I lead from the heart, not the head, and albeit that's got me into trouble in my work, I understand that. But someone's got to go out there and love people and show it.

BASHIR: Do you think that because of the way you behave that's precluded you effectively from becoming Queen?

DIANA: Yes, well not precluded me. I wouldn't say that. I just don't think I have as many supporters in that environment as I did.

BASHIR: You mean within the Royal Household?

DIANA: Uh,uh. They see me as a threat of some kind, and I'm here to do good: I'm not a destructive person.

BASHIR: Why do they see you as a threat?

DIANA: I think every strong woman in history has had to walk down a similar path, and I think it's the strength that causes the confusion and the fear.

Why is she strong? Where does she get it from? Where is she taking it?

Where is she going to use it? Why do the public still support her? When I say public, you go and do an engagement and there's a great many people there.

BASHIR: Do you think the Prince of Wales will ever be King?

DIANA: I don't think any of us know the answer to that. And obviously it's a question that's in everybody's head. But who knows, who knows what fate will produce, who knows what circumstances will provoke?

BASHIR: But you would know him better than most people. Do you think he would wish to be King?

DIANA: There was always conflict on that subject with him when we discussed it, and I understood that conflict, because it's a very demanding role, being Prince of Wales, but it's an equally more demanding role being King.

And being Prince of Wales produces more freedom now, and being King would be a little bit more suffocating. And because I know the character I would think that the top job, as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him, and I don't know whether he could adapt to that.

BASHIR: Do you think it would make more sense in the light of the marital difficulties that you and the Prince of Wales have had if the position of monarch passed directly to your son Prince William?

DIANA: Well, then you have to see that William's very young at the moment, so do you want a burden like that to be put on his shoulders at such an age? So I can't answer that question.

BASHIR: Would it be your wish that when Prince William comes of age that he were to succeed the Queen rather than the current Prince of Wales?

DIANA: My wish is that my husband finds peace of mind, and from that follows others things, yes.

BASHIR: Why have you decided to give this interview now? Why have you decided to speak at this time?

DIANA: Because we will have been separated three years this December, and the perception that has been given of me for the last three years has been very confusing, turbulent, and in some areas I'm sure many, many people doubt me.

And I want to reassure all those people who have loved me and supported me throughout the last 15 years that I'd never let them down. That is a priority to me, along with my children.

BASHIR: And so you feel that by speaking out in this way you'll be able to reassure the people?

DIANA: Uh,uh. The people that matter to me - the man on the street, yup, because that's what matters more than anything else.

BASHIR: Some people might think - some people might interpret this as you simply taking the opportunity to get your own back on your husband.

DIANA: I don't sit here with resentment: I sit here with sadness because a marriage hasn't worked.

I sit here with hope because there's a future ahead, a future for my husband, a future for myself and a future for the monarchy.

BASHIR: Your Royal Highness, thank you.


Would You Buy a Genocidal Secret War from This Man...?












Theresa May, Pervert of Justice



"Communications data have played a significant role in every Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the last decade. They have been used as evidence in 95% of all serious organised crime cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and they have played a significant role in the investigation of many of the most serious crimes in recent times, including the Oxford and Rochdale child grooming cases, the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the murder of Rhys Jones. 

Communications data can prove or disprove alibis, identify associations between potential criminals and tie suspects and victims to a crime scene." 

- The Evil, Shameless Liar Theresa May

This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of The Truth.

Ian Huntley is Completely Innocent, and mobile phone records (kept from the jury) prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Remember - Hollywood (and Fleet Street) Accredits the Memes : Continually referring to "The Soham Murders" or "The Soham Killings" suggests (utterly falsely) that some murders occurred in the village of Soham, which was in absolutely in no sense true.


Conversely, calling them "The RAF Lakeheath Killings", or "The USAF Lakenheath Murders" might lead one to suspect that perhaps the double murder if two virgins occurred somewhere around about midnight, in a patch of ancient woodland straddling the perimeter fence of the largest US Airbase in Europe outside of West Germany, on the last night of Beltane - which would no doubt bring servicemen from both forces under suspicion, given that Satanic Cults have been an endemic problem on US Air Bases such as Minot AFB going as far as the Son of Sam case in the mid-1970s, and this was on the most important Pagan/Satanic Holiday of the year 2002.

The Church of Satan, and then later it's successor, The Temple of Set was first organised in Vietnam amongst Green Beret Special Forces attached to the Phoenix Program, schooled in Dianetics - what Charles Manson refers to as "techniques to process the Mind and free yourself from past confusions ["Body Thetans"] " - total self-absolution, in other words.


This was all in a day's work. 


It's Just a Sprinkling for the May Queen

"The Newmarket taxi driver Ian Webster reported to the police having seen at the time of the abductions (approx 7 pm) a metallic green saloon car which was being driven erratically and suicidally down the A142, the road that runs between Soham and Newmarket where Warren Hill stands. Ian Webster had been following this car and had pulled back two hundred yards because of the dangerous driving. He reported seeing the driver careering into the curbs on both sides of the road while struggling with two children in his car. The driver was reaching out backwards over his seat and flapping at something in the hands of a child in the back seat. 

Mr Webster said that this child had brown hair, and that he thought there was another child in the front seat. Given the fact that the driver was driving in this way with children in his car, his behaviour cannot have been any other than that of the abductor himself, and given the timing also, this incident cannot describe any other situation than the abduction. The girl with the brown hair in the back seat would have been Jessica and she was the one with the mobile phone. The abductor would not have been able to stop his car to deal with any problem with this because the girls would have been able to get out of the car and run away.

Shortly before this, there were unconfirmed sightings of the two girls on the southern edge of Soham near a Q8 petrol filling station and a roundabout. It was from this point that Webster followed this car.
In sum, the geography, timing, circumstantial factors and behavioural features of this incident can leave no doubt that Mr Webster had witnessed the actual abduction. His experience links Warren Hill and Newmarket with Soham through a rather different style of killer than Ian Huntley, just as the forensic evidence and the dumping of the bodies at Lakenheath linked them together in a case against him.
Jessica's mobile phone contacted the mast at Burwell when it was switched off, and this is half-way between Soham and Newmarket. This circumstance connects the jogger incident with that of Ian Webster and the abductions at Soham.

The police lost interest in Mr Webster's testimony, despite its irrefutable authenticity, when it was discovered that a passenger's mobile phone bill had clocked the incident at 6 pm instead of 7 pm. This technical anomaly cannot discount Mr Webster's driver as an obvious suspect, and the timing of the mobile phone call would have to be questioned or distrusted. Their disregarding the facts of the incident instead shows that the police are allowing juries and trial procedure to determine how they detect their crimes rather than the events themselves.



Games For May.

Witnesses back in Soham had reported seeing a man and a woman in a dark green car staring at two girls that afternoon.

Earlier in May that year a similar couple had attempted to abduct a child at an under-fives play group near where Jessica and Holly disappeared. A strange woman entered the play group and asked to take a child away, claiming that she belonged to a friend of hers. But the woman got the child's name wrong and didn't know the name of the mother, and when the staff saw a man acting suspiciously outside they called the police. When Jessica and Holly were snatched the police naturally connected the two incidents.

Several witnesses reported seeing the girls in Soham at the time that they are alleged to have died in Huntley's house, and there are doubts about the time that they actually disappeared from Soham. Ian Webster's testimony would indicate 6.50 as being the approximate time of the abductions, and this corresponds with the police claim that Jessica's mobile phone was switched off at 6.46, which would explain what Ian Webster's erratic driver was flapping at in the back seat of his car. The phone mast at Burwell would indicate that she was out of Soham by then.

Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witness statement, which he made when he realized that the two girls who had called to see Maxine Carr at 6:00 that evening had been the two that the police were looking for. He had told the girls that Maxine wasn't in and they left in the direction of College Road, which leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnesses reported seeing the girls at 6:45, the time that the prosecution case alleged they had died in Huntley's house. If the girls had been abducted at the War Memorial, the killer would have had a direct route to the A142 where the taxi driver Ian Webster encountered his suspect.

Ian Huntley at Trial, Under Heavy Sedation/Mind Control


The police arrested Huntley on suspicion of murder nine hours before the public found the bodies, and the public understood that it was now a murder investigation before the bodies were thus discovered. The prosecution case was that the police had found the girls' clothes in one of Huntley's caretaker's bins at the school. These clothes were the basis of the arrest and subsequent prosecution, yet the Manchester United shirts lacked any DNA from the victims' bodies. It is just as unlikely that the girls could have lived and died and their bodies had decomposed in those shirts without leaving any DNA in them as it is that a local killer would fit himself up with forensic evidence for the police, or that a trophy killer would use scissors and forensic techniques to remove his trophies. The only logical explanation for this surely must be that the police had found the bodies before the public did, but couldn't use the shirts as they found them because they were saturated with evidence that the girls had been buried underground."



My Struggle

"I bought Mein Kampf when I was 17, I've got it on a shelf in the front room back home."
- Tony Benn 




Should Germans Read ‘Mein Kampf’?
By PETER ROSS RANGE
JULY 7, 2014


WASHINGTON — GERMANY is once again passing through the wringer of its past. At issue this time are not the deeds but the words of Adolf Hitler and the planned republication of his infamous manifesto-as-autobiography, “Mein Kampf,” a book that has been officially suppressed in the country since the end of World War II.

But while the prospect of the Führer’s words circulating freely on the German market may shock some, it shouldn’t. The inoculation of a younger generation against the Nazi bacillus is better served by open confrontation with Hitler’s words than by keeping his reviled tract in the shadows of illegality.

Hitler wrote the first draft of his deeply anti-Semitic, race-based ideological screed in 1924, while in prison for leading a failed coup; by the time of his death 21 years later, it had sold 10 million copies.

Since then, although “Mein Kampf” has maintained a shadow presence — on the back shelves of used bookstores and libraries and, more recently, online — its copyright holder, the state of Bavaria, has refused to allow its republication, creating an aura of taboo around the book.

All that is about to change. Bavaria’s copyright expires at the end of 2015; after that, anyone can publish the book: a quality publisher, a mass-market pulp house, even a neo-Nazi group.

The release of “Mein Kampf” into Germany’s cultural bloodstream is sure to be a sensational moment. In a nation that still avidly buys books — and loves to argue in public — the book will again ignite painful intergenerational debates on talk shows and in opinion pages about how parents and grandparents let themselves be so blindly misled.

Like the 1996 uproar caused by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” ["This is worthless" - leading Holocaust historian] which accused ordinary Germans of being capable of mass-murdering Jews, this publishing event will shape contemporary politics and feed Germany’s deep-rooted postwar pacifism. Germany’s involvement — or noninvolvement — in international crises like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya and, most recently, Mali is profoundly influenced by such impassioned debates. “Germany is a haunted land, still living in Hitler’s shadow,” the German Jewish writer Henryk M. Broder told me recently.

Racing to be first to publish the book is the Institute for Contemporary History, a noted center in Munich for the study of Nazism, which has a five-scholar team at work on an annotated “critical edition” of Hitler’s 700-page ramble.

The institute’s version will double the size of the book and create an academic baseline for all future study of the ur-text of Hitlerism, said the team’s leader, Christian Hartmann. The book’s extensive notations, he added, will “encircle” Hitler’s story line with a “collage” of commentary to demystify and decode it, an alternative subtext and historical context that will strip it of its allegedly hypnotizing power.

Unsurprisingly, the “Mein Kampf” project has stirred uproar in some Jewish circles. Charlotte Knobloch, president of the Israelite Cultural Community of Munich and Upper Bavaria, said “there is still a danger” of catalyzing far-right sentiments. Uri Chanoch, an 86-year-old Israeli Holocaust survivor, added that Germans “somewhere in their hearts still have a hatred for us” and has campaigned aggressively against the book’s republication, calling for international pressure on Bavaria to block it.

After such sentiments were expressed to Bavaria’s premier, Horst Seehofer, during a trip to Israel, he decided to halt his state’s planned participation in the “Mein Kampf” project and cancel the $684,000 it had given in research funding.

That decision, in turn, triggered an outcry among academics and in the Bavarian Legislature, which had earlier approved the book. Even some Jewish leaders were taken aback. “I was astonished by this decision,” said Salomon Korn, the leader of Frankfurt’s 7,000-strong Jewish community. “We should have already had a critical edition of ‘Mein Kampf.’ ”

In an awkward dance, Mr. Seehofer’s government was forced to reconsider its reconsideration. It agreed to leave the money in place while withholding its governmental seal of approval. This reverse fig leaf may or may not mollify opponents, especially in Israel, who thought they had stopped the book.

But with the funding in hand, the institute is proceeding. Its edition will serve a political purpose, countering the negative impact on Germany’s image and political culture of raw reprints of the book that might flood the market. Whether it impedes such publications or not, the academic edition can always be held up as authoritative, especially in schools and universities. This is a good thing. Sixty-nine years after World War II, it no longer makes sense for Germans not to have unfettered access to the same book that can be easily bought in other countries. 

Keeping Hitler’s dreary and often incomprehensible diatribe under wraps, out of misplaced fear of a Nazi revival, is a vast overreaction: Germany’s only pseudo-Nazi party received 1 percent in the recent European Parliament vote; in France, the far right received nearly 25 percent.

In 1959, West Germany’s first postwar president, Theodor Heuss, recommended republishing “Mein Kampf” as a cautionary document for the German people. Not yet ready for such a confrontation, the political establishment ignored him. Today, 55 years and 10 presidents later, Heuss’s good idea is finally coming to fruition.

Peter Ross Range is a journalist who writes frequently on Germany.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 8, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Should Germans Read ‘Mein Kampf’?. 

The Obama Doctrine: Has it Reached the Time to Grow a Pair..?


As Air Force One prepared to touch down in the Holy Land last year, I looked out my window and was once again struck by the fact that Israel’s security can be measured in a matter of minutes and miles. I’ve seen what security means to those who live near the Blue Line, to children in Sderot who just want to grow up without fear, to families who’ve lost their homes and everything they have to Hezbollah’s and Hamas’s rockets.

And as a father myself, I cannot imagine the pain endured by the parents of Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaar and Eyal Yifrach, who were tragically kidnapped and murdered in June.  I am also heartbroken by the senseless abduction and murder of Mohammed Hussein Abu Khdeir, whose life was stolen from him and his family.  At this dangerous moment, all parties must protect the innocent and act with reasonableness and restraint, not vengeance and retribution.

From Harry Truman through today, the United States has always been Israel’s greatest friend. As I’ve said time and again, neither I nor the United States will ever waver in our commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people, and our support for peace will always remain a bedrock foundation of that commitment.

Over the past five years, we’ve expanded our cooperation and today, as Israel’s leaders have affirmed, the security relationship between Israel and the United States is stronger than ever. Our militaries conduct more exercises together.

Our intelligence cooperation is at an all-time high. Together, we’re developing new defense technologies, such as remote IED-sensing equipment and lightweight protective armor that will protect our troops.

Budgets in Washington are tight, but our commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad. The United States is committed to providing more than $3 billion each year to help finance Israel’s security through 2018. Across the board, our unprecedented security cooperation is making Israel safer, and American investments in Israel’s cutting-edge defense systems like the Arrow interceptor system and Iron Dome are saving lives.

Our commitment to Israel’s security also extends to our engagement throughout the Middle East. Last month, under American leadership, the international community successfully removed the last of Bashar al-Assad’s declared chemical weapons from Syria. Eliminating this stockpile reduces the ability of a brutal dictator to use weapons of mass destruction to threaten not just the Syrian people but Syria’s neighbors, including Israel. And we will continue working with our partners in Europe and the Arab world to support the moderate opposition and to press for a political solution that resolves a conflict that is feeding a humanitarian crisis and regional instability.

We are also working to ensure that Iran does not ever possess a nuclear weapon. Through tough international negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, we are attempting to peacefully address a major threat to global and regional security, including the security of Israel. We have been clear that any agreement must provide concrete, verifiable assurances that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, and we have consulted closely with Israel throughout this process. As we draw near to the deadline for negotiations, we do not yet know if these talks will succeed, but our bottom line has not changed. We are determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and we are keeping every option on the table to accomplish that goal.

The United States has also demonstrated our commitment to Israel’s security through our enduring commitment to a lasting peace in the Middle East. We have always been clear-eyed that resolving the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians would take enormous effort and require difficult decisions by the parties. So while we were disappointed that the tough decisions weren’t made by both parties to keep moving the peace process forward, the United States will never give up on the hope of a lasting peace, which is the only path to true security for Israel.

As I said last year in Jerusalem, peace is necessary, just, and possible. I believed it then. I believe it now. Peace is necessary because it’s the only way to ensure a secure and democratic future for the Jewish state of Israel. While walls and missile defense systems can help protect against some threats, true safety will only come with a comprehensive negotiated settlement. Reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians would also help turn the tide of international sentiment and sideline violent extremists, further bolstering Israel’s security.

Peace is also, undeniably, just. Just as the Israeli people have the right to live in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, the Palestinian people deserve the right to self-determination. Palestinian children have hopes and dreams for their future and deserve to live with the dignity that can only come with a state of their own. And, in President Abbas, Israel has a counterpart committed to a two-state solution and security cooperation with Israel. The United States has repeatedly made clear that any Palestinian government must uphold these long-standing principles: a commitment to non-violence, adherence to past agreements, and the recognition of Israel. With negotiations on hiatus, these principles are more important than ever. All parties must exercise restraint and work together to maintain stability on the ground.

Finally, peace is possible. This is one of the most important things to remember during setbacks and moments of frustration. It will take political will to make the difficult choices that are necessary and support from the Israeli and Palestinian people and civil society. Both parties must be willing to take risks for peace. But at the end of the day, we know where negotiations must lead—two states for two peoples. Refusing to compromise or cooperate with one another won’t do anything to increase security for either the Israeli or the Palestinian people. The only solution is a democratic, Jewish state living side-by-side in peace and security with a viable, independent Palestinian state. That’s why Secretary Kerry and I remain determined to work with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to pursue a two-state solution. When the political will exists to recommit to serious negotiations, the United States will be there, ready to do our part.

A few weeks ago, I met with President Peres at the White House as he prepares to end his term. As always, it was an honor to sit and talk with a man who has given so much of his life to building the State of Israel and who has so much hope for his country. Shimon Peres has been a dauntless advocate for Israel’s security, and last month, in his historic meeting with President Abbas and Pope Francis at the Vatican, he put it simply: “Without peace,” he said, “we are not complete.”

For all that Israel has accomplished, for all that Israel will achieve, Israel cannot be complete and it cannot be secure without peace. It is never too late to seed the ground for peace—a true and living peace that exists not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of all Israelis and Palestinians. That is the future the United States remains committed to, as Israel’s first friend, Israel’s oldest friend, and Israel’s strongest friend.

Barack Obama is president of the United States of America.

This article was written for Haaretz's Israel Conference on Peace before June 30, 2014.

The articles that appear in this section have also been published in Hebrew and Arabic. 





בין הנושאים: המימד המדיני - לקחים מניסיון כושל; השלום וההיבט הכלכלי; השלום והפריפריה והזווית הפלסטינית, מה חושבים על תהליך השלום בתפוצות;  הקשר בין צדק חברתי לשלום, שלום וביטחון; דמוקרטיה וזכויות אדם.

בין הדוברים: נשיא המדינה שמעון פרס, ראש צוות המו"מ הפלסטיני סאיב עריקאת, שרת המשפטים והממונה על המו"מ ציפי לבני, לשעבר ראש הממשלה ושר הביטחון אהוד ברק, ראש האופוזיציה יצחק הרצוג, שר הכלכלה נפתלי בנט, מוניב אל מאסרי, סגן יו"ר הכנסת ח"כ ד"ר אחמד טיבי, ח"כ שלי יחימוביץ, יובל דיסקין, יו"ר מועצת יש"ע לשעבר דני דיין, הסופר דויד גרוסמן, יו"ר הוועדה לתכנון ותקצוב (מל"ג) ויו"ר הוועדה לשינוי חברתי כלכלי פרופ' מנואל טרכטנברג, הפילוסוף אלן פינקלקרהאוט, שגריר האיחוד האירופאי לארס אנדרסן, ראש מועצת ירוחם מיכאל ביטון, אלוף במיל' יעקב עמידרור, יו״ר מרצ, ח״כ זהבה גלאון.

מנחים: ארי שביט, אלוף בן, סמי פרץ, איתן אבריאל, ברק רביד, ניב רסקין, חמי שלו, רוית הכט, עמוס הראל, לוסי אהריש 

עקב ריבוי נרשמים לוועידה, עצרנו את ההרשמה בשלב זה.
אנא עקבו אחרינו בימים הקרובים.
 תודה

ועידת ישראל לשלום مؤتمر اسرائيل للسلام
هل كان مهندسو اتفاق أوسلو مخدوعين او ماكرين؟
أثبت اتفاق أوسلو أنه في بعض الأحيان يمكن اعداد بيض من العجة، وما من اتفاقية لا رجعة عنها. هذا لا يناقض حقيقة أن على إسرائيل الانفصال عن الفلسطينيين

ألوف بن 26.06.2014 03:00


عندما سوقوا اتفاق أوسلو للجمهور الإسرائيلي، وصفه شمعون بيرس بحكمة أصبحت قولا متداولا: "يمكن صنع العجة من البيض، ولكن من غير الممكن صنع البيض من العجة". بيرس اراد القول أن عملية السلام لا رجعة عنها، ومن المهم تعزيزها بتسويات سياسية واقتصادية مع دول في المنطقة، تضمن استقرار العملية والحفاظ عليها على طول الوقت.

منذ ذلك الحين مر ما يقارب 21 عاما، وحتى بيرس توقف عن الحديث عن الشرق الأوسط الجديد، عن انضمام اسرائيل الى جامعة الدول العربية وعن إقامة البنك الإقليمي، المبادرات التي نصح بها خلال ايام الابتهاج من توقيع اتفاق اوسلو. عملية أوسلو ونهايتها الكئيبة تثبت انه يمكن صنع البيض من العجة. التاريخ لا يجري في اتجاه واحد، وايضا انفجارات كبيرة وتغييرات جذرية تتلاشى أو ترتدي وجوها أخرى تختلف عما كان يأمل المبادرون اليها.

بعض الأجزاء المهمة من تسوية أوسلو لا زالت قائمة الى اليوم: تعمل في الضفة الغربية السلطة الفلسطينية، التي تتمتع باعتراف دولي واسع؛ أخلت اسرائيل قطاع غزة، والحدود بينهما تبدو مقبولة ومتفق عليها؛ مرة كل بضعة سنوات (كامب ديفيد، أنابوليس، محادثات كيري) يحاولون التوصل إلى تسوية دائمة.

لكن الادعاء الرئيسي لمهندسي أوسلو، أن إقامة حكم ذاتي في المناطق هو "نهاية الاحتلال"، بدا في وقت لاحق بأن لا أساس له. الاحتلال الإسرائيلي في المناطق لم ينته ولو للحظة واحدة. ولم يتمتع الفلسطينيون على الاطلاق باستقلال كجيرانهم الأردنيين، اللبنانيين أو السوريين. إسرائيل تحدد، وتواصل تحديد، متى وتحت أي ظروف يمكن للفلسطيني أن يدخل او يخرج من بلده.


التوقيع على اتّفاق اوسلو، 1993. צילום: AP
الخطاب الاسرائيلي، ولمدة عقدين كان يقدس "حل الدولتين"، عاد الى الوراء إلى فترة ما قبل الاعتراف بمنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية وعملية أوسلو. رؤيا تقسيم البلاد باتفاقية لدولتين، إسرائيل وفلسطين، القيت جانبا كهدف غير قابل للتحقيق. اليمين يطرح ضم الضفة الغربية على مراحل وفي اليسار يدور نقاش حول دولة واحدة مع مساواة في الحقوق المدنية للجميع، لليهود وللفلسطينيين. اما تيارات الوسط فعادت لدعم انسحاب من جانب واحد من جزء من الضفة، بهدف تخفيف الضغط الدولي على إسرائيل، على طريقة انسحاب اريئيل شارون من غزة.

التوتر بين وجهتي النظر- دولة واحدة او مقسمة- قائم منذ ما يقارب 100 عام، منذ وعد بلفور، الذي وعد بانشاء "وطن قومي" لليهود في ارض إسرائيل. حل الانتداب البريطاني على البلاد في عام 1919 باعتبارها دولة واحدة، يعيش فيها المهاجرون اليهود إلى جانب العرب المحليين. هذا الامر لم ينجح، وفي سنوات الـ 30 نشأت فكرة تقسيم البلاد الى دولة يهودية وعربية (تقرير لجنة بيل من عام 1937)، ومنذ ذلك الوقت تأرجح البندول بين النموذجين: العودة إلى دولة واحدة مع أغلبية عربية (الكتاب الأبيض البريطاني عام 1939)، ومرة أخرى التقسيم (قرار الامم المتحدة لعام 1947).

إن اقامة دولة إسرائيل لم تغير الديناميكية: تقسيم فعلي في اتفاق الهدنة بعد حرب الاستقلال (1949)، التوحيد مرة أخرى إلى دولة واحدة بدون حدود داخلية، وبدون حقوق مواطن متساوية، بعد حرب الأيام الستة (1967); وإنشاء تدريجي لآليات الفصل- إغلاق المناطق، اتفاق أوسلو، جدار الفصل، الانفصال عن غزة وجولات المحادثات على التسوية الدائمة- اندلاع الانتفاضة الأولى (1987) حتى فشل محادثات كيري (2014).

لماذا تحطمت الآمال الجذابة لأوسلو، ولماذا علقت عملية التقسيم في الحلق؟ في اليمين ادعوا ان مهندسي الاتفاق، اسحاق رابين وشمعون بيرس، كانا مخدوعين عندما سارا عبثا وراء الارهابي المراوغ عرفات، الذي خدعهما بإقامة قاعدة لانطلاق عمليات التفجير في قلب اسرائيل. ادعى اليسار أن بيرس ورابين كانا ماكرين، اذ طلبا خصخصة الاحتلال وتخفيض سعره السياسي الأمني ​​والاقتصادي لصالح إسرائيل، ولذلك اكتفيا بتسوية مؤقتة، واقاما السلطة الفلسطينية بتمويل دولي، وسارعا في بناء المستوطنات.

انها تفسيرات سطحية، كما هو الجدال فيما اذا اعدت عملية أوسلو مسبقا للفشل، مثلما يدعي منتقديها، او انها فشلت بسبب الظروف- الأنشطة الإرهابية لمعارضيها، اغتيال رابين وصعود بنيامين نتنياهو إلى السلطة، وفشل قمة كامب ديفيد، وفي نهايتها مقولة ايهود براك: "لا يوجد شريك".

خلافا للطريقة المتبعة في الجدل السياسي في إسرائيل، فإن عملية أوسلو لم تكن فقط رهن صفاء نوايا من وقعوا عليها ومن جاء بعدهم، بل من الضروري فهم إنجازاتها وأزماتها في السياق التاريخي الذي جرت خلاله.

تم توقيع الاتفاق الاسرائيلي- الفلسطيني بعد سنوات معدودة من نهاية الحرب الباردة وانهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي. اجتاحت العالم آنذاك موجة من ازالة الجدران الفاصلة، واقامت إسرائيل، جددت أو عززت علاقات مع عشرات الدول التي كانت تقاطعها في السابق. بدا تخفيف طوق العداء العربي والتنازل عن أرض إسرائيل الكبرى كتعبيرين محليين لـ "نهاية التاريخ". في مثل هذه الظروف، يسهل ادراك سبب اعتقاد بيرس واصدقائه بأن هذه عملية لا رجعة عنها: إذا كانت قوة عظمى كبيرة مثل الاتحاد السوفياتي، في اوج عزها هزمت هتلر وفرضت سيطرتها على نصف العالم، قد تبخرت بين ليلة وضحاها، فمن بمقدوره أن يوقف السلام الإسرائيلي- الفلسطيني؟

فرانسيس فوكوياما، الباحث الأمريكي ومؤلف "نهاية التاريخ"، يواصل نشر مقالات تدافع عن ادعائه الأساسي- انتصار الديمقراطية الرأسمالية- لكن التاريخ تقدم على غير ما توقع. العالم في 2014 بعيد عن بهجة نهاية القرن الماضي. الانفصالية والقومية تعززت، وتوقفت اتجاهات التعاون وتهشيم الجدران. ان الموجة القومية التي يقودها الآن نتنياهو في إسرائيل تدوي ايضا في روسيا، الصين، الهند، اليابان، في بعض دول أوروبا وبشكل مختلف وعلى استحياء في أمريكا بقيادة باراك أوباما. في الدول العربية- العراق، سوريا، مصر، لبنان- تفجرت صراعات قبلية ودينية. في عالم كهذا، يبدو السلام الإسرائيلي- العربي فكرة غير منطقية من القرن الماضي وليس كهدف عملي قابل للتحقيق.

لكن التغييرات الكثيرة التي حدثت في الساحة الدولية والبيئة المحلية لا تزعزع الفرضية الاساسية لعملية السلام والانفصال عن المناطق: إسرائيل بحاجة إلى حدود دائمة، كأساس لتطبيع مكانتها في الشرق الأوسط. حدود معترف بها- حتى بدون اتفاقيات، فقط مصافحات ومعانقات- تضمن استقرارا وأمنا أكثر من أي حل آخر.

المشكلة في أفكار اليمين ليست أنهم "غير منطقيين" أو ان "العالم" لن يتقبلهم، بل لانهم يوفرون مبررا سهلا ومريحا لكل من يريد مواصلة النزاع مع إسرائيل والتشكيك في شرعية وجودها، وان السيطرة المستمرة على الفلسطينيين تضطر إسرائيل الى تصعيد القمع الذي يضر بديمقراطيتها من الداخل. ما من تسوية لا رجعة عنها، وكل حل يتطلب صيانة ورعاية لكي يبقى طويلا. هذه عبرة مهمة من عملية أوسلو، لكن ليس سببا للتنازل عن فكرة التقسيم.

ألوف بن هو رئيس تحرير جريدة هآرتس





Who Lives in a House Like This...?




Who lives in a house like this...?

And who've they got tied up in the cupboard...?

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Dahmer



Serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer (1960-1994) graduated from Revere High School in Bath, Ohio in 1978. On page 145 of the school's Minuteman yearbook, the following text appears on the right side: "JEFF DAHMER: Band 1; Lantern 3; Tennis Intramurals 2, 3, 4; Ohio State Univ. (Business)..."

In The Jeffrey Dahmer Story author Don Davis depicts Dahmer as a prankish drunk at Revere who was shy around girls. So well-known were the future murderer's gags that classmates referred to generally outrageous behavior as "Doing a Dahmer." During the senior class trip to Washington, D.C. Davis writes that Dahmer finessed a group invitation to Vice President Walter Mondale's office (Mondale was not present for the students' visit). 



17 Killed, and a Life Is Searched for Clues

By JAMES BARRON with MARY B. W. TABOR,
Published: August 4, 1991

On page 98 of Jeffrey L. Dahmer's Ohio high-school yearbook is a photograph of 45 honor society students lined up shoulder to shoulder, their hair well combed, their smiles confident.

One senior three rows from the top has no smile, no eyes, no face at all: his image was blacked out with a marking pen, reduced to a silhouette by an annoyed student editor before the yearbook went to the printer.

That silhouette was Mr. Dahmer in the spring of 1978, a couple of months before he says he killed his first victim, with a barbell. It was 13 years before he confessed to one of the most horrific strings of slayings in modern times.


With grades that ranged from A's to D's, Mr. Dahmer fell far short of honor society standards, but he sneaked into the photo session as if he belonged. No one said a word until long after the shutter had clicked.

In all the years he cried out for attention, it was one of the few times he got caught. By then he had taught himself to live behind a mask of normalcy that hid his often contradictory emotions. It was a mask no one pulled down until one night last month, when a man in handcuffs dashed out of Mr. Dahmer's bizarrely cluttered apartment in a tough Milwaukee neighborhood, called the police and stammered that Mr. Dahmer had been trying to kill him.

The authorities say that at least 17 other men did not get away: that Mr. Dahmer drugged their drinks, strangled them and cut up their bodies with an electric buzz saw; that he discarded bones he did not want in a 57-gallon drum he had bought for just that purpose; that he lined up three skulls on a shelf in his apartment, but only after spraying them with gray paint, to fool people into thinking that they were plastic models, the kind an aspiring artist or a medical intern might study.

Once, he told the police in Milwaukee, he fried a victim's bicep in vegetable shortening and ate it.

Some criminal psychologists see traits in Mr. Dahmer that they have studied in mass killers like Theodore Bundy, who was was electrocuted in Florida in 1989 after a 15-year trail of violence that investigators believe took the lives of at least 30 young women across the nation, or John Wayne Gacy, who was convicted in 1980 of the sex killings of 33 young men in Chicago.

"We're dealing with some of the same dynamics that we can see in Gacy: the dysfunctional family, a guy who denies his homosexual feelings to erase whatever shame he might feel in committing these acts, who destroys the people who attracted him in the first place," said Ted Cahill, who wrote a book about the Gacy killings. "He's punishing himself and punishing them at the same time."

Now everyone from detectives to radio talk-show hosts is puzzling over the Dahmer case. The facts by themselves -- a home where parents went through a bitter divorce; a brother he long believed was the favorite in the family; a mother who he told the police had a nervous breakdown; his own lack of close friends -- do not explain why he did what he says he did. But the increasingly gruesome details that have emerged about Mr. Dahmer have all led back to one basic question: Who is this man?

He was an elementary-school student who stored animal skeletons in bottles of formaldehyde. A high-school drinker who swigged Scotch in early morning classes. An Army medic who convinced his buddies that he hated anything more unpleasant than taking soldiers' blood pressure. A factory worker who killed a gay man in a Milwaukee hotel, packed the body into a suitcase, took an elevator to the lobby, hailed a cab and had the driver put the suitcase in the trunk.

Like Mr. Gacy and Mr. Bundy, Mr. Dahmer went undetected for years. Some of his victims came from the fringes of society, and there were so many that he could not remember them all -- men he filed in his memory not by their names but by their tattoos. Some of them were like Mr. Dahmer himself, people of whom society did not take much notice. Disturbing Images From Childhood

And he could talk his way out of trouble when he had to. On May 27, nearly two months before his arrest, neighbors called the police about a naked, bleeding teen-ager they had seen wandering on the street outside Mr. Dahmer's apartment. The officers who investigated believed Mr. Dahmer's explanation that he and the boy were living together and were just having a quarrel.

After they left, Mr. Dahmer said later, he killed the teen-ager, Konerak Sinthasomphone. The officers have been suspended, with pay.

He had a glib side, talking his way into Vice President Walter F. Mondale's suite and the office of the humorist Art Buchwald on a school trip to Washington. But his hometown -- Bath Township, Ohio, a prosperous community that was home to Firestones and other decision makers who presided over the tire factories of nearby Akron -- was a tight-lipped place. Mr. Dahmer was tight-lipped about himself. And if anyone realized how unusual some of his behavior was, no one did anything about it.


"Whatever had gone on in Jeff's life, he couldn't talk about." said Martha Schmidt, a classmate at Revere High School who is now an assistant professor of sociology at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. But she added, "It seemed so clear all along that it was someone saying, 'Pay attention to me.' "

He had been saying it for years. School records of his teachers' comments suggest that his feelings of alienation were apparent as early as first grade. His mother became ill in 1966 before and after the birth of his brother, David. "Jeff felt neglected," said a school official in Doylestown, Ohio, where Mr. Dahmer, then 6 years old, had been enrolled in Hazel Harvey Elementary School that fall.

The family moved to nearby Barberton before the school year was over, and a little more than a year later, when Mr. Dahmer was 8, they moved again, to Bath. From what his father, Lionel Dahmer, told a Milwaukee probation officer last year, that would have been about the time that Jeffrey Dahmer was sexually assaulted by a neighborhood boy. Jeffrey Dahmer, in his conversations with the police, has denied he was ever assaulted in that way.

Eric Tyson, who grew up across the street, said Jeffrey Dahmer kept chipmunk and squirrel skeletons in a backyard shed and had an animal burial ground at the side of the house, with graves and little crosses. "A number of neighbors have recalled seeing animals, like frogs and cats impaled, or staked to trees," he said.


Mr. Dahmer's high school record had the look of normalcy: he was in the band and played intramural tennis. But he drank. "I used to see him drinking gin," said Chip Crofoot, another classmate.

One day he went to a class with a Scotch, and Ms. Schmidt asked why he was drinking. "It's my medicine" was his reply, she said.

He sometimes tried to get attention by yelling odd exclamations in public places or by pretending to faint while crossing a street.

Sneaking into the honor society photograph became something of an annual prank: he did it when he was a junior as well as when he was a senior. "It was a very Jeff thing to do," Ms. Schmidt said. "It was part of his trying to be unconventional and to mock everything around him. I think he very consciously chose the honor society because I think in some ways he was laughing at himself and us." Trouble at Home, And Then a Killing

There was turbulence at home: the Dahmers' marriage was unraveling. One person who knew the Dahmers said that as things deterioriated Lionel Dahmer moved to a different part of the house to be away from his wife. He even jury-rigged an alarm, a string pulled across the room with keys hanging from it that would jangle if she intruded while he slept. Later Mr. Dahmer moved to a motel.

It was in the final weeks of the divorce settlement, just after Jeffrey Dahmer's high school graduation, that he says he committed his first homicide, a killing that went unreported until he told the police about it last month.

Mr. Dahmer told the police he picked up a hitchhiker named Steven Hicks and took him home for a beer. Mr. Dahmer said they had sex.

When Mr. Hicks wanted to leave, Mr. Dahmer smashed the back of his head with a barbell and then strangled him. He dragged the body into a crawlspace under the house, cut it into pieces and stored it in garbage bags. Later, he buried the bones, only to dig them up, crush them and scatter them in a ravine behind his parents' house.

That set a pattern that the authorities say Mr. Dahmer followed in Milwaukee, where he turned his grandmother's house and later his own apartment into killing factories: He would offer people a beer or money to pose in the nude while he took photographs. When they wanted to leave, he became violent. Showing a Different Side While On Military Duty

The next stop for Mr. Dahmer was Ohio State University, where he spent one semester. Then he enlisted in the Army and reported for duty at Fort McClellan, Ala., in the spring of 1980. He began training to be a military police officer, but soon transferred to Fort Sam Houston, in San Antonio, for a six-week course as a medical specialist, the military equivalent of a nurse's aide, a job that involved screening patients. He was assigned to the 2d Battalion, 68th Armored Regiment, 8th Infantry Division, and was sent to Baumholder in West Germany.

Mr. Dahmer decorated his room in Baumholder with a poster of the heavy-metal rock band Iron Maiden. He also spent hours poring over a children's picture book about the troll and the billy goats Gruff and telling boozy W. C. Fields jokes. Once he gave his bunkmate, Billy J. Capshaw, a birthday card with a beer mug on it and a Fields punchline. "To a fellow guzzler on his 19th birthday," he wrote on the card.

"He talked about his dad a lot," Mr. Capshaw said. "He wanted to please his dad." Mr. Capshaw believed that Mr. Dahmer was an only child. "He never said anything about a brother," Mr. Capshaw said last week.

Mr. Dahmer was clean-cut and easy-going, though he chided Mr. Capshaw for using foul language. But when he drank he became stony-faced and, to Mr. Capshaw, menacing.

"When he'd drink, he'd get real violent with me," said Mr. Capshaw, who is now serving a one-year sentence in the Garland County Jail in Hot Springs, Ark., for negligent homicide, a misdemeanor, involving a 14-year-old who borrowed his car and hit and killed someone. "You could tell in his face that he wasn't joking. It was for real. That's why it bothered me. It was a whole different side. His face was blank. It was kind of like he was cross-eyed-like. An expression like he just wasn't there. I've never seen it on anyone else's face." Killing Becomes Almost a Routine


Mr. Dahmer was honorably discharged in March 1981, a year before his three-year enlistment was over. The scuttlebutt around the barracks was that he was discharged for drinking. Army officials in Washington would not discuss the reasons, but Mr. Dahmer said he was discharged under Chapter 9 of the Code of Military Justice, a section that covers drug or alcohol use by Army personnel.

From what Mr. Dahmer told the police last month, fantasies of killing people that he had when he was 17 or 18 recurred after he left the Army and moved to Milwaukee, where his grandmother lived and where he eventually got a job at the Ambrosia Chocolate Company. But he told the police he did not kill again until late 1984 or early 1985, when he "discovered the gay bars."

Police reports written after his arrest last month said Mr. Dahmer met his first victim in Milwaukee at the 219 Club, a bar frequented by homosexuals. They went to the Ambassador Hotel, where a room for two costs $43.88 a night, plus a refundable $10 key deposit. In the police report he did not say he had killed the man; he just talked about how the two of them got drunk and passed out. "When he woke up, the guy was dead and had blood coming from his mouth," the report said, giving Mr. Dahmer's explanation of what happened next.

He told the police he left the body in the room while he went to a mall, bought a suitcase, returned to the hotel, put the body inside, called a taxi and took it to his grandmother's house, where he was living. There he dismembered the body and disposed of it. The police report did not say where his grandmother was at the time.

The police report said he did not kill his next victim until roughly a year later, this time at his grandmother's house. He told the police he met the man at the 219 Club and gave him sleeping pills after they had sex. Then he strangled the man after he dozed off. He said he also drugged his third victim at his grandmother's house. Talking of Everything Except the Darkest Side

Mr. Dahmer was arrested in 1986 for taking photographs of a 14-year-old boy and was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail. The killings resumed, he told the police, when he was released after serving a partial sentence. He was seeing a parole officer at the same time.

He said that in 1989 he had sex with a man, drugged him and stabbed him with a hunting knife. Then he dismembered the body in the bathtub and used hydrochloric acid to destroy the bones.

Mr. Dahmer said his next killing, two months later, followed the same routine: sex, drugs in a drink, death and dismemberment. "Subject states he began getting quicker at cutting up the bodies," the police report noted.

What unfolded in his sessions with the parole-probation officer, Donna Chester, was a partial look at his life. She was unavailable for an interview last week. But her impressions of Mr. Dahmer recorded in an 81-page document that was released by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, give no indication that Mr. Dahmer set off alarm bells during their chats.

The reason was that he seemed to talk about everything except the killings.

He sometimes expressed interest in talking about his sexual orientation, but often could not bring himself to say what was on his mind. "Client states he knows he prefers male partners but client feels guilty about it." Ms. Chester wrote.

He also talked about family tensions. "He is uncomfortable with his family," she wrote after a session, "because (1) his father is controlling, (2) he has nothing in common with his brother who attends college and (3) he is embarrassed by his offense." He said he had talked with his mother and that she had told him she knew he was gay but that it did not matter.

Money was also on his mind. Ms. Chester wrote that Mr. Dahmer "gets angry at people who make a lot of money, saying "why are they so lucky?' And he 'hates' them for having so much."

Ms. Chester told Mr. Dahmer he had a good job, but he was frustrated that he always seemed short of cash and that the life he longed to lead was beyond his means. But for all of Mr. Dahmer's complaining about finances, his job appeared to be going well. He earned about $9 an hour at the candy factory and took home $250 to $300 a week, depending on how much overtime he put in.

Soon that security was in jeopardy. On July 8, Mr. Dahmer told Ms. Chester he was in danger of losing his job because of arriving late or not showing up.

On July 14, just days before his arrest, he told Ms. Chester he had been dismissed. He told her he had overslept after spending all day visiting his grandmother in a hospital.

The police reports indicate that the killings became more frequent as things at work deteriorated. He told the police that he killed on June 30, July 4 and July 19.

Three days after that last killing, he was arrested shortly after the man in handcuffs fled his apartment and flagged down police officers.


Goodbye Blue Sky



























Meeting Gods


"My specific take on Superman’s physicality was inspired by the “shamanic” meeting my JLA editor Dan Raspler and I had in the wee hours of the morning outside the San Diego comic book convention in whenever it was, ‘98 or ‘99.

I’ve told this story in more detail elsewhere but basically, we were trying to figure out how to “reboot” Superman without splitting up his marriage to Lois, which seemed like a cop–out. It was the beginning of the conversations which ultimately led to Superman Now, with Dan and I restlessly pacing around trying to figure out a new way into the character of Superman and coming up short…
Until we looked up to see a guy dressed as Superman crossing the train tracks. Not just any skinny convention guy in an ill–fitting suit, this guy actually looked like Superman. It was too good a moment to let pass, so I ran over to him, told him what we’d been trying to do and asked if he wouldn’t mind indulging us by answering some questions about Superman, which he did…in the persona and voice of Superman!

We talked for an hour and a half and he walked off into the night with his friend (no, it wasn’t Jimmy Olsen, sadly). I sat up the rest of the night, scribbling page after page of Superman notes as the sun came up over the naval yards.

My entire approach to Superman had come from the way that guy had been sitting; so easy, so confident, as if, invulnerable to all physical harm, he could relax completely and be spontaneous and warm. That pose, sitting hunched on the bollard, with one knee up, the cape just hanging there, talking to us seemed to me to be the opposite of the clenched, muscle-bound look the character sometimes sports and that was the key to Superman for me.

I met the same Superman a couple of times afterwards but he wasn’t Superman, just a nice guy dressed as Superman, whose name I didn’t save but who has entered into my own personal mythology (a picture has from that time has survived showing me and Mark Waid posing alongside this guy and a couple of young readers dressed as Superboy and Supergirl – it’s in the “Gallery” section at my website for anybody who can be bothered looking. This is the guy who lit the fuse that led to All Star Superman).

- Grant Morrisson