Although the official French inquiry blamed the 1997 crash on the chauffeur being drunk and driving too fast, conspiracy theorists have always questioned that verdict.
Mohamed al Fayed, father of Diana's companion Dodi, who was killed in the crash, has repeatedly said the pair were murdered because their relationship was embarrassing the royal household.
He and Paul's parents said the driver was sober when the car hit a pillar in a Paris underpass.
They have said that blood samples taken from him after his death which showed he had been drinking might have been swapped in hospital to pin the blame for the crash on him.
The British Broadcasting Corporation's documentary says French police ordered DNA tests on Paul's blood sample to prove it was his and had not been switched in hospital.
The DNA profile was compared with samples taken from Paul's parents and the two matched, apparently ruling out the possibility of swapped samples.
"There is not a shadow of a doubt," French police commander Jean-Claude Mules told the BBC in extracts from the programme shown on Saturday. "Top British experts have confirmed the accuracy and the excellence of the analysis done by the French."
British and French authorities have dismissed the welter of conspiracy theories about the death of Diana.
Former London police chief Sir John Stevens was called in to investigate the crash and the theories surrounding it. He is due to unveil the results of his three-year probe next week. Newspapers say he will conclude the crash was a tragic accident.
Paul was a member of the security staff at the Ritz Hotel in Paris where Diana had dined.
In a newspaper interview on Saturday, French detective Martine Monteil, who led the French investigation, said there was "not a shred of doubt" the crash was caused by Paul's high-speed drunk driving.
"Those DNA samples and the test results were all sent to the British police," she told the Daily Mail. "Nothing was swapped."British inquest hearings into the deaths of Diana and Dodi al Fayed are due to begin next month.
The country's former top woman judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who came out of retirement specially to oversee the sensitive inquiry, has decided instead to handle the case on her own.Butler-Sloss made her decision after reviewing legal arguments put before her at the High Court in London last week.
At last week's preliminary hearing, she ruled that it would be inappropriate to allow royal officials to sit on a jury deciding how Diana and her lover Dodi al Fayed died in a 1997 Paris crash.
Because Diana was part of the royal family when she died, any jury, according to a convention dating back to the 16th century, would usually be made up of members of the royal household.
Diana's children, Princes William and Harry, who are eager to put a decade of speculation behind them, have expressed the hope that the long-awaited inquest will be "open, fair and transparent" and completed as fast as possible.
Dodi's father, Harrods luxury store owner Mohamed al Fayed, had wanted the inquest to be held before a public jury.
Butler-Sloss had already decided that the inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi should run concurrently.
In the years since the accident, a host of conspiracy theories has flourished, suggesting the couple were murdered because their relationship embarrassed the royal family.
Three weeks ago, a police investigation ruled that their Paris car crash was an accident and the two were not the victims of an elaborate murder plot.
A two-year French investigation had already come to that conclusion, but under British law an inquest is needed formally to determine the cause of death when someone dies unnaturally.
An inquest cannot apportion blame but can rule that the death was "unnatural", due to violence or an accident.
The death of the "People's Princess" -- divorced from Prince Charles and the world's most photographed woman -- sparked an outpouring of grief.
Diana, who was 36, Fayed, 42, and their chauffeur Henri Paul died
their Mercedes limousine smashed at high speed into a pillar in a Paris
road tunnel after they sped away from the Ritz Hotel, pursued by
paparazzi on motorbikes.
MARCH 02 2007
Given the number of conspiracy-theory
loonies on the loose it may be just as well the High Court has decided
on legal technical grounds that Lady Butler-Sloss could not sit as
'Deputy Coroner to the Queen's Household'. That means her decsision to
sit without a jury (a sensible idea, permitting her to give a reasoned
verdict) cannot be taken by her and she (or whoever) will sit with a
jury. That means, I assume, that there will just be a verdict, without
reasons, which Al Fayed has already said he will accept.
Interesting. That will in theory
shut him up, while leaving conspiracy theorists free to assure us and
him that the jury was mistaken or misled. Let's face it, unless
the driver of Diana's car crashed it deliberately, suitably tanked up
for a suicide mission, there is no case for anything except an
accident. But since it seems Al Fayed was the person who decided Henri
Paul should drive at the last minute, that's a difficult conclusion.
The High Court, while wrapping
their decision in legality, have actually reached it for wider
political reasons to set a precedent and remove it from any special or
royal category. OK, I suppose.
She had argued it would be an "almost impossible task" for a jury to decide.
Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, died when their car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris in 1997 as they were pursued by paparazzi photographers.
Mr Al Fayed insists that the couple were murdered.
Outside the High Court, he told reporters he was happy with the decision. "I am certain that when the jury sees the evidence they will prove my belief."
He said he would stand by any verdict they reached.
Lady Justice Smith, sitting with Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Silber, made clear that Lady Butler-Sloss cannot sit as the royal coroner They said: "We quash the decisions to conduct the inquests as deputy coroner for the Queen's Household and without summoning a jury" but made it clear that Lady Butler-Sloss could continue to conduct the inquests if she wished.
The Royal Courts of Justice said Lady Butler-Sloss would not stand down from the case.
A spokeswoman said: "We are intending that, as planned, part of the pre-inquest hearing before Baroness Butler-Sloss will take place on March 5."
She added that Lady Butler-Sloss will be sitting as coroner of "some sort", although they are still assessing the meaning of the ruling on her status in the case.
Prince William and Prince Harry have said they want the inquest to be prompt, fair and transparent.
A three-year inquiry, led by former Metropolitan Police chief Lord Stevens, found no evidence of a conspiracy to murder the couple.
The inquiry report said Dodi's driver Henri Paul was speeding and over the legal drink-drive limit.
MARCH 06 2007
Al Fayed's legal team have asked for more
time to prepare 'their case', whatever that may be - apparently that
the Duke of Edinburgh and MI6 managed to get Diana into the Mercedes,
with Henri Paul as the driver, and then have him chased in such a way
that while driving fast and trying to avoid a Fiat Uno he crashed. I
can just imagine the Duke approving the plans, can't you, all worked
out at the last minute when it was discovered that Diana was pregnant
and about to marry Dodi?
The most brilliant part of the plot was
surely organising all the paparazzi to chase the car but not be there
to see the crash. Good to know we still have real magicians in our
secret services like in the good old days when Jasper Maskelyne made
the 8th army disappear just when Rommel was looking for it in the
Quite rightly, Lady Butler-Sloss has
given poor Al Fayed, who subconsciously blames himself for the crash,
enough rope to hang himself. The inquest is put off tlll
Ocotober. How Michael Mansfield has the brass neck to take his money
and allow him to go on with this farce is a question that will one day
APRIL 24th 2007
If you ask me, Lady B-S has decided she has better things to do. But she will at least do the pre-inquest hearings.
Lady Butler-Sloss said she lacked the experience required to deal with an inquest with a jury.
Lord Justice Scott Baker will take over as coroner for the inquests, which were expected to take place in October.
The princess died in a car crash in 1997 in the Pont D'Alma tunnel in Paris along with Mr Al Fayed.
Lady Butler-Sloss said in a statement: "This was a decision I took in the interests of the inquests after a great deal of thought and reflection.
"These inquests now require a jury, and I do not have the degree of experience of jury cases that I feel is necessary and appropriate for presiding over inquests of this level of public interest.
"I must stress this does not require a fresh start for the inquests - I will continue to preside over pre-inquest hearings until Lord Justice Scott Baker takes up the appointment in June.
"This will ensure the inquests' momentum is maintained while he will have the opportunity to familiarise himself with the voluminous paperwork associated with the inquests."
June 6th 2007
The Channel 4 documentary tonight was an
excellent piece of journalism. It was only necssary because of the
absurd conspiracy theories and innacurate evidence and allegations
surrounding the events, shortly to be put forward before a coroner. The
press as a whole, more than any particular photographers, were a party
to the causation of the accident. The other party was Al Fayed and any
other handlers who decided who should drive Diana's car on that night
and under what circumstances and with what plans. To avoid an accident
sooner or later when under such continual pressure from the press
required a driver of exceptional judgement who would never, whether or
not he had alcohol in his bloodstream, exceed his limitations. Even
then, circumstances can sonspire against any driver. Such an accident
was hardly a surprise, though the violence and fatality was due to the
specially unforgiving characteristics of concrete pillars and tunnel
JULY 1st 2007
The concert this afternoon at Wembly
should help to put to rest the idea that Charles' marriage to Diana
was, as a typical media commentator assumed, a mistake. William and
Harry's initiative in organising this celebratory memorial and its
immense success is evidence enough that her children are, in today's
jargon, not just fit for purpose but capable of inspirational
leadership. However, as far as R. Gervaise is concerned, I agree with
B. Stiller (even if he was joking), The (brilliant) Office not
withstanding. He's just a bore.
JULY 9th 2007
Now that the coroner has told Al Fayed what he can do with his request to call the Queen as a witness, the imagination strays onto whether, if Al Fayed was to be prosecuted for criminal negligence in organising the transport arrangements for his son and Diana, who might be called as witnesses in that case. Her death was an accident, but in the past that has never stood in the way of prosecuting people whose negligence certainly led to such an accident. Once this coroner's hearing has established that it was an accident the way should be open to hold Al Fayed to account.
AUGUST 31st 2007
Today we have a memorial service
commemorating 10 years since Diana's death. This event, organised by
Princes William and Harry, is clearly a great opportunity to gather
together all those who supported the charities Diana did so much to
help through her genuine care and, let us face it, her use of the media
who so damaged her to positive ends. While the Daily Express and its
diminishing readership continue the speculative feeding frenzy the rest
of the world has moved on and can now look back on a life of great
achievement as a mother and as a woman who, though coming unprepared
for a public role, showed very considerable courage. Every trip-wire
possible was put in her way by the media and by 'friends' and at times
she stumbled. Today was a day to celebrate the positive, very great
achievements. Harry's speech and the Bishop of London's address
expressed between them the moving and greatly inspiring truth behind a
life for which we can all be grateful. RIP.
SEPTEMBER 30th 2007
(Reuters) - Ten years after Princess Diana was killed in a high-speed
car crash in Paris, a judicial inquest into her death finally begins
Two major investigations by French and British police have concluded the crash was an accident caused by her speeding chauffeur, who was drunk. But they have not satisfied Mohamed al-Fayed, father of Diana's lover Dodi, who also died in the crash, or a small number of remaining conspiracy theorists.
Now it is the turn of the judicial system to stage what Diana's sons, princes William and Harry, passionately hope will be an "open, fair and transparent" inquest that will finally allow their mother to rest in peace.
Media and public interest are so intense that the jurors have been given police protection at the inquest, which could last up to six months.
The coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, told jurors he was "very anxious" they should not be harassed in any way.
Diana, 36, Dodi al-Fayed, 42, and chauffeur Henri Paul were all killed when their limousine smashed into a pillar in a road tunnel as they sped away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris, pursued by paparazzi on motorbikes.
Under law, an inquest is needed formally to determine the cause of death when someone dies unnaturally. It was delayed until the two police probes were completed.
Dodi's father, the Egyptian tycoon who owns the Paris Ritz as well as the London luxury store Harrods, is convinced his son and Diana were victims of a British establishment conspiracy to stop them marrying.
Al-Fayed, implacable foe of the House of Windsor and Diana's former husband Prince Charles, heir to the throne, told Reuters in a recent interview: "The royal family must have ice water in their veins."
The Egyptian, who fought a long legal battle to have the inquest held before a jury, pledged: "I will never rest until I have exposed the whole murderous conspiracy. My son and Diana were slaughtered."
So, will the inquest finally lay to rest the theories surrounding the death of the "People's Princess", one of the 20th century's most iconic figures?
Royal biographer Penny Junor told Reuters: "There are people who are obsessed with the idea that it was not an accident. How long can they go on? Mohamed al-Fayed has no intention of dropping it.
"I hope this will put an end to the conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't put too much money on it."
OCTOBER 3rd 2007
The inquest is now underweigh. In my view
there are two possible conclusions.
1. The death of Diana was caused by an
accident without any known deliberate human cause.
2. The death of Diana was caused by an accident caused by an unidentified driver who may or may not have wished to provoke a car crash to cause trouble to the couple. Death could not have been a certain outcome of this driver's action.
It is hard to imagine the driver of the
other car being able to plan this event in view of the suddenness the
couple left their hotel with an unstated destination. It is more likely
this unfortunate driver was a victim of events and his own personality.
Whether or not some over keen policeman
tried to enhance any post facto evidence, or some forensic work was
sloppy, and whether or not Dodi was going to propose, it does not add
up to evidence of a murder plot ordered by Prince Philip and carried
out by MI6 - that theory is for people wh don't know anything about
OCTOBER 31st 2007
The inquest has now run for nearly a month and it becomes ever clearer that the death of Diana and Dodi was caused by the paparazzi and her driver, the first playing their endless game for money and the latter playing a game back to prove he could outwit them and outdrive them. The French authorities have decided not to compel any French paparazzi or their drivers to attend the inquest, as they sense quite rightly that they might be forcing them to incriminate themselves, even though this inquest has been declared as a forum in which such incrimination is not possible as it is not a criminal proceedings. Personally speaking, as the driver is dead and the only other people responsible for the accident are these paparazzi, I think the French government are right. These people are guilty as hell, but there is no pint in trying to attribute blame between them. The blame lies with the Sun and the ilk of Kelvin McKenzie and Rupert Murdoch and the readers who buy the tabloids in excessive numbers. We need a free press. The Sun and its writers can always exist, but when it sells enough copies to make its owners rich on printing rubbish, we have to acknowledge the public, just as at the Roman Circus, are responsible for its success. It is significant that the photographer first on the scene did not ask for £300,000 from a French paper, even though the French press had for years run many stories on the British Royal Family.
JANUARY 14th 2008
Paul Burrell lives in his own self-promotional dreamworld. He is right when he says that it is impossible that the Royal Family had anything to do with the death of Diana, but when it comes to his own role and status in this affair he will, if he is not careful, dig himself a big hole. He is almost certainly right that Diana was not contemplating marriage with Dodi, but it is also just as unlikely that his claim to be the guardian of secrets that he will take to the grave (that have any importance) is anything more than an insurance policy to keep his value as an author and a media personality now that his chances of employment based on his conventonal talents are virtually zero. His value to this inquest as a credible witness may rapidly diminish.
At the time Diana went to see her lawyer, Lord Mishcon, she was at a low point in her morale an a high point in her confusion. Mishcon took notes, now read out at this inquest, which show clearly how the Diana's image of herself and her importance in the world around her was running wild in her head. Her opinions on the Queen's abdication, and the roles she wanted for other members of the Royal Family, were absurd, but because she believed them and took herself seriously they help to explain why she thought someone would bother to murder her. It is a classic case of transferred motivation.
JANUARY 15th 2008
Back in court today, Burrell reveals his brain is as much a mess as was that of his former employer. They must have made a fine pair. I think his value as a credible witness is finished. There is no doubt that the pressure of public attention and the UK media can send those who take public opinion or the media and its gurus seriously into a seriously deluded state.
FEBRUARY 15th 2008
Now we getting to the truth. Macnamara, clearly the source of most conspiracy theories, will I hope be prosecuted when this is all over. As for his boss, Al Fayed, who is the source of Macnamara's corruption, he should be made for the full and complete cost of these proceedings as well as being prosecuted for slander, libel and maybe (let us wait and see) perjury. Perhaps we can deport him when he gets out.
The former top police officer - sent to Paris after the crash that killed Diana and Mr Al Fayed's son - found driver Mr Paul had two Ricards that evening.
John Macnamara had previously told a US TV programme he drank pineapple juice.
He also told the court his claims that Diana was pregnant when she died were based on what a journalist told him.
Earlier, Ex-Met Police chief Lord Stevens called for an apology after his report into the death was criticised.
He denied "scurrilous accusations" that he had not done his job properly when overseeing the Paget report into the princess's death which ruled it had been a "tragic accident".
The princess, Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul died in the 1997 Paris crash and according to the report, tests indicated Mr Paul was three times over the French drink-drive limit.
|| I have come here to tell the truth
Addressing retired Met detective chief superintendent Mr Macnamara's inconsistency, the coroner told him that one of the problems for the jury was "if you are telling lies on some occasions, how can they tell if you are telling the truth on others?"
"As a former Chief Superintendent surely you, above anybody, are aware of the importance of telling the truth in public?", he asked him.
Mr Macnamara replied, "Yes" and told the jury: "I have come here to tell the truth".
The coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, went on asked Mr Macnamara why he had failed to apologise to Princess Diana's former bodyguard, Trevor Rees, for remarks he had made about him in his sworn statement to the original police investigation.
"Have you apologised to Mr Rees Jones, having made the very serious statement: 'in my opinion Rees Jones has willingly and in return for payment been used as a mouthpiece by or on behalf of the security services to discredit the mounting evidence that the crash was not an accident'?"
Mr Macnamara replied that he had not seen Mr Rees, and had believed his statement to be true at the time he made it.
Mr Macnamara was asked about two allegations he made about Princess Diana in his witness statement, issued on July 3, 2006.
He admitted that he now had no evidence to support his then "firm belief" that Princess Diana had telephoned friends to tell them of her intended engagement to Dodi.
He also admitted that his belief that Princess Diana was pregnant at the time of her death was based upon a conversation with a journalist, who had told him that Lord (then Sir Michael) Jay had ordered the princess's body to be embalmed.
Asked if he now knew that allegation to be wrong Mr Macnamara replied: "Yes, because he (Lord Jay) has given evidence in court."
Mr Macnamara was also asked about his allegation that Diana and Dodi were murdered, and that the British and French security services "were complicit in their deaths."
"That was my belief yes," he replied.
Asked whether he believed the Duke of Edinburgh was involved in a conspiracy to murder the Princess Mr Macnamara replied: "Not to my knowledge. I have never mentioned the Duke of Edinburgh."
Mr Macnamara said evidence that the pair were murdered had originally come from "people like" Richard Tomlinson, a former MI6 officer.
On Wednesday Mr Tomlinson admitted that he have been "confused" when he told Mohamed Al Fayed that MI6 plans to kill Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in a car crash bore an "eerie similarity" to the crash that killed Mr Al Fayed's son Dodi and Princess Diana.
Mr Tomlinson also admitted that he had no evidence to back his earlier assertion that Henri Paul was an MI6 agent.
FEBRUARY 18th 2008
Mohamed al Fayed has claimed that Princess Diana and his son Dodi Fayed were "murdered" as he gave evidence at their inquest.
Mr al Fayed began his evidence by stating he would "make no allegations" and said he was simply declaring his beliefs about how the couple died.
But then he immediately told the court: "Princess Diana also told me personally before and during the holiday we shared in July 1997 of her fears.
"She told me that she knew Prince Philip and Prince Charles were trying to get rid of her."
Mr al Fayed insists the Paris car crash that killed Dodi, Diana and their driver, Henri Paul, on August 31, 1997 was the work of MI6 at the behest of the Duke of Edinburgh.
As he arrived at the High Court he said: "This is my moment for me to say exactly what how I feel.
"I've been fighting for ten years. This is the moment for me to say exactly what I feel happened to my son and Diana."
He insists Diana and Dodi were preparing to announce their engagement when they died and is on record as believing the Princess was pregnant with his son's child.
The inquest has heard there is no medical evidence that she was pregnant, but Mr al Fayed is likely to say he was told so by Diana.
The jury has heard evidence that Dodi did buy Diana a ring - a diamond-crusted design from the Repossi jewellers - hours before their deaths.
But the suggestion that it was an engagement ring has been challenged and the court has heard that it was Mr al Fayed who settled the bill for it only after the couple had died.
Mr al Fayed also believes that driver Henri Paul - who was also killed in the crash - was not drink-driving as suggested by blood tests, which he believes were faked, but that he was distracted by a blinding flash of light, possibly from a stun gun.
The inquest has been told that bar records from the Ritz suggest Mr Paul drank two double measures of Ricard liqueur.
Mr al Fayed is also likely to be challenged to produce evidence backing up his allegation that MI6 were involved in the crash.
The court has heard he is convinced Mr Paul - the acting head of security at the Ritz at the time - was in the pay of spies and acting under orders when he drove the Mercedes involved in the crash.
The Harrods boss also believes a mystery white car, possibly owned by photographer James Andanson, who is now dead, played a role.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! All rights reserved.
First read this ITN report:
A witness at the Princess Diana inquest has said Paul Burrell took an engagement ring off her dead body.
The claim has been made by Michael Faux, who was employed as Mr Burrell's bodyguard for a year until 2003.
He told the jury in central London that the former royal butler also kept documents, including papers note-headed with the Buckingham Palace crest, and burnt them.
Mr Faux said he saw Mr Burrell take "one or two" bin bags with property he had "hidden" at a neighbour's home in Farndon, Cheshire, and "frantically" burn them in his back garden in November or December 2002.
He claimed that an anxious Mr Burrell was "upset and virtually crying" when he at first refused to sign a confidentiality agreement.
No sooner had he agreed to sign, than Mr Burrell told him that he had an engagement ring, which Mr Faux said he was "led to believe" was Diana's.
Under questioning from Nicholas Hilliard, for the coroner, Mr Faux told the court: "He said that he took it from the body in Paris."
Mr Hilliard said: "Did he have any way of demonstrating this was hers?"
Mr Faux replied: "Yes, there was still blood on the ring and he could prove it was her by the DNA."
Mr Faux said that he thought it "was not right that he had taken it off her finger", probably in the hospital, and that he felt "disgusted" with him.
The jury has heard that Diana had received a gold Bulgari friendship ring from lover Dodi Fayed which she wore on her right hand.
There was also a £11,500 Repossi ring, which some claim was an engagement ring, bought in the weeks before the couple died.
Mr Burrell, who is now based in the US and refuses to return to the witness box, has rejected Mr Faux's claims.
In a written statement to the court, Mr Burrell said there had been no conversation about a ring.
He said: "I have never referred to the Bulgari friendship ring as an engagement ring. This is not my opinion of what the ring was.
"I have never told anybody that I have had possession of that ring. I am not in possession of that ring."
In his evidence in January Mr Burrell recalled being given a given a brown envelope containing the jewellery, minus one earring, which Diana wore when she died. He thinks that Colin Tebbut, Diana's security consultant, later gave him the ring that Diana was wearing.
Mr Burrell accepted that he had documents that headed with the Buckingham Palace crest but said that was because papers sent to him would have been addressed like this because he used to work there.
He said he did burn papers, such as old bank statements, in a brazier in his garden, but never anything "significant".
Mohamed al Fayed is convinced his son Dodi and Diana were engaged and believes their fatal August 1997 car crash was an MI6-led murder plot to stop the marriage going ahead.
Points to note:
In a written statement to the court, Mr
Burrell said: "I have never
told anybody that I have had possession of that ring. I am not in
possession of that ring."
Note that he did not say that he never had possession of the Bulgari
Friendship ring, but that he never took a ring off her finger. He
thinks he was given it by Diana's Security Consultant, but is not now
in possession of it
Now consider the possibilities
1. Faux is lying and Burrell is telling the truth about this matter.
2. Faux is telling the truth, but Burrell was lying when he spoke to Faux, exaggerating his role in order to appear a key player in Diana's life, protecting her memory etc., guardian of her closest possessions. Now he is lying about not speaking to Faux to avoid coming over as a habitual liar who poses as a man of mystery and her closest confidant to remain a celebrity as he is unemployable.
3. Faux is telling the truth, Burrell was telling the truth when he spoke to Faux and is lying now when he says he never spoke to Faux about a ring at any time.
What are the possible outcomes?
The Coroner will have to decided on the balance of all the evidence, given and still to come, barring any tangible proof, which of the above is true and which false. He will then have to decide if one of the witnesses that he is convinced is lying did so to the court and is therefore liable to prosecution for slander, libel or perjury.
Faux's allegations are so extreme and damaging that in my view 1 above is impossible as the consequences for Faux are too dire for him to risk a total fabrication unless he has been bribed by Fayed with a million or more, relying on the fact that Burrell's credibility is shaky.
2 above Is possible and in some ways consistent with Burrell's performance to date
3 above opens up a can of worms which
require this inquest to call more witnesses and recall others who have
testified already. However, there is not the slightest chance of any
involvement by the Royal Family or MI6 even in the case of 3 above
The fact remains that even if Diana was
wearing a secret engement ring and Burrell removed it thinking it might
have been an engagement ring, the purpose of this Coroners Court is to
find out if the cause of death was a driving accident. That has never
been in any doubt in the minds of those who have looked at all the
evidence so far. There is no matching set of Motive+Means+Opportunity,
and no evidence either. On those grounds the case for murder or
manslaughter and the execution of a conspiracy by anybody, let alone
Prince Philip, fails totally and comprehensively.
But then there actually were those who
could not work out that the MacCann's could not have murdered their own
daughter. Not only was there no motive at all, it was a physical
impossibility once the corroborated evidence on actions, times and
distance were computed. So the crazy theories will not die in the minds
of seriously confused and mentally deficient people who have been
damaged by life and get some sort of relief out of the idea that the
life of others is a complete mess also.
MARCH 31st 2008
The judge has left the jury to decide between the possible verdicts:
1. Accidental death
2. Unlawful killing by criminal negligence on the part of the driver, the paparazzi or both
3. An open verdict (though given the evidence that it was not a 'staged accident' it is hard to see what this openness allows for)
I would have like to see a fourth
possibility: accidental death contributed to substantially by the
arrangements for the transport of Diana by Mohamed al Fayed.
APRIL 1st 2008
Tests on blood and other samples from Mr Paul, the Paris Ritz Hotel's acting head of security, showed that he was three times the French drink-drive limit when he crashed the Mercedes in which Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed, were killed.
It had been believed that the samples were lost or destroyed and questions remained over a DNA test on one which appeared to show it was from Mr Paul.
After briefly adjourning for legal argument, the coroner brought the jury back into court to send them away for an early lunch while an accurate translation of the email from France was obtained.
About the email, the Coroner told the jury: "Whether this contains anything that is new seems very doubtful. Whether it does contain anything that is relevant also seems pretty doubtful.
"But having gone six months down the road it seems desirable that we should bottom out this problem before we go any further."
(Press Association extract)
"Bottom out"? Groovy lingo, M'lud.
APRIL 07 2008
The jury have come to the right decision. That is number 2 listed above on March 31st: Unlawful killing due to the criminal negligence of the driver and the paparazzi. They noted too the absence of seat belts as a contributory factor. As I said at the time, and at the start of this file, it was something that as time went on was every more likely to happen. That is why I called it 'destiny assisted suicide'. This verdict does not attribute criminal liabilty. There is no doubt that without the agression of the paparazzi and the bad driving of Henri Paul, there would have been no accident, but there will be no criminal charges unless France wishes to prosecute the paparazzi in Paris.
Mohamed al Fayed, true to form, reneged
on his agreement to accept the verdict. The two things the jury ruled
out were conspiracy and murder. Al Fayed pretends today that their
verdict is that Diana and Dodi were murdered and conspiracy is not
ruled out. I thi9nk by now we all have this man's number.