The thirteenth pillar – the death of Di reconsidered

👤 Terry Hanstock  

At 00:20 on Sunday 31 August 1997 a black Mercedes S280 carrying four people left the Ritz Hotel in central Paris. Shortly afterwards at 00:25 it crashed into the thirteenth pillar of the Concorde-Boulogne lane of the Pont d’Alma Tunnel in central Paris. The driver – Henri Paul – was killed instantly. The front passenger – Trevor Rees-Jones, a bodyguard employed by the Al Fayed family – was still conscious but had suffered serious facial injuries. In the back of the car Dodi Fayed lay mortally injured – he was pronounced dead at 01:30. Also in the back of the car was Diana, Princess of Wales. Injured but still conscious, she was eventually released from the wreckage at 01:00 and transferred to the Pitie Salpetriere Hospital, arriving there at 02:06. She was pronounced dead at 04:00.(1)

The bare facts outlined above are the only points that most people agree on. In spite of an official investigation and numerous books and articles, the circumstances surrounding the crash are still being argued over.(2)

Following the crash the French Public Prosecutor launched an investigation into the part played by ten press photographers, members of a group of paparazzi who had been trailing Diana and Dodi since their arrival in Paris. They had driven after the Mercedes on its last journey and were widely regarded as being the primary cause of the crash. Specifically, the ten were charged with failing to assist people in danger and involuntary homicide or involuntary injury. Two years later, on 3 September 1999, the examining magistrates, Herve Stephan and Marie-Christine Devidal, handed down a ruling ‘…dismissing charges against all persons charged in the case.'(3) On the same day the Public Prosecutor issued a report identifying the inebriated condition of Henri Paul as the main cause of the crash. In his capacity as the instigator of the fatal journey from the Ritz Hotel, Dodi Fayed was also implicitly criticised.(4) The main thrust of the Report, however, concentrated on the behaviour of the paparazzi. What it didn’t do was satisfactorily explain or investigate any of the conflicting accounts of the crash itself.

Much of the controversy surrounding the crash has been coloured by the enthusiastic proconspiracy claims of Dodi’s father, Mohammed Al Fayed. Unfortunately this has resulted in some aspects of the events before and after crash being dismissed simply because they have been promoted by Al Fayed.(5)

Examining the motivation behind the crash – assuming that it wasn’t an accident – warrants a whole article to itself.(6) At this stage it is probably more useful to examine the circumstances of the crash and the rumours surrounding it.

The Tunnel

The crash occurred in an area where the chances of witnesses being present were minimised – a tunnel. According to the former MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, this is ‘…a perfect place for an assassination, with fewer witnesses. The Paris tunnel is also ideal because there are no crash rails along the central pillars, so it’s a death trap.'(7)

The most direct route from the Ritz Hotel to Dodi’s apartment at Rue Arsene-Houssaye would have been through the Place de la Concorde and along the Avenue des Champs Elysees. Instead Henri Paul turned onto the Expressway, apparently heading towards the Alma Tunnel. However, he may have been simply avoiding the crowded Champs Elysees with the intention of turning right off the Expressway and taking a less congested route to the flat along the Rue Francois Premier. In other words he had no intention of going through the Tunnel. In the event he was prevented from turning onto the Rue Francois Premier by an alleged ‘…pursuing paparazzi motorist who blocked the exit road before the Alma Tunnel.'(8) This was witnessed by Thierry H, although it is unclear how he knew that the car blocking the road was occupied by paparazzi.

Electronic sabotage

According to one theory the Mercedes, having being ‘lured’ into the Alma Tunnel, was electronically sabotaged by a radio signal, causing the accelerator and brakes to jam.(9) It should be noted that this particular car had had been broken into and stolen the previous April, with thousands of pounds worth of damage being done to the controls. Although it was subsequently recovered and repaired, a dashboard warning light still indicated problems with the braking system. According to the local Mercedes dealership, this was simply due to ‘…harmless air bubbles’. It has been suggested that the theft was carried out so that the Mercedes’ electronic system could be replaced with a unit pre-programmed to automatically alter the car’s acceleration and braking systems.(10) The main weakness with this idea, of course, is how potential assassins would know that this particular car was going to be used on the night of the crash.

The Explosion

Another theory involves the attaching of a small remote controlled explosive device to or near the left front wheel of the Mercedes. This would have been remotely activated as the car entered the tunnel, causing the device to explode and the left front wheel to deflate. The car would then immediately veer left and hit the Tunnel pillars.(11) As with the electronic sabotage theory, the question remains as to how the assassins knew that this particular car was going to be used on the night of the crash.

One should note, however, that early news coverage of the crash carried interviews with witnesses who claimed to have heard an explosion either before or after the crash. CNN Headline News, for example, interviewed eyewitnesses who thought ‘…the order of the noises of the accident went like this … “a loud bang or explosion, screeching tires, a crashing sound, more screeching tires and another crashing sound.” It seemed that the witnesses were differentiating between the crashing sound and the Explosion or Bang.'(12) As another viewer pointed out, ‘I also heard the reports several times early Sunday of an “explosion”, differentiated from a “crash”. I have never heard an English speaker refer to an auto collision impact as an “explosion”.'(13)

An American couple, Tom Richardson and Joanna Luz, who were walking nearby heard a noise ‘like an explosion’.(14) These may have been the same American tourists who were prevented from entering the Tunnel just before the accident, by a man who ran out yelling at them to ‘..get back, it is going to explode’. An explosion followed after 20 seconds.(15)

Accounts of the explosion were not followed up by either the Public Prosecutor or the media.

The Flash

Some witnesses claim to have seen a bright flash in the Tunnel, leading to the theory that a strobe light was used to dazzle or disorientate Henri Paul.(16) This was given a great deal of publicity by the ITV documentary, Diana: the secrets behind the crash, much of its arguments relying on the testimony of Francois Levistre (also known as Frank Levy or Franc Levi), who claimed to have seen a ‘big flash’ as he was driving through the Tunnel just before the crash. Although he was subsequently debunked and discredited by the official investigators, being described as a ‘…notorious French charlatan’ by one journalist, there were other witnesses who saw something similar. An unnamed taxi driver was overtaken by the Mercedes and watched it go into the Tunnel. He saw a flash of light and then heard a crash.(17) Brenda Wells, an English secretary living in Paris, also saw ‘…strong lights, like flashes…I stopped and 5 or 6 motorbikes arrived and started taking photographs.'(18) In other words, she was distinguishing between strong lights and the flashguns of the paparazzi.

The White Fiat Uno and the motorcycle(s)

It seems to be generally agreed that a white Fiat Uno and at least one motorcycle may have been near the Mercedes at the time of the crash. Traces of white paint, supposedly from the Fiat, were found on the crashed car, encouraging speculation that both cars had collided immediately prior to the crash.(19)

Some eyewitnesses reported seeing a powerful motorcycle swerve in front of Diana’s car at high speed. Brian Anderson, a Californian businessman travelling by taxi, saw the Mercedes being closely followed by two motorcycles, with the first motorcycle trying to get in front of the car.(20)

One theory is that the motorcyclist in question was attempting to slow down the Mercedes in order to allow the pursuing photographers to catch it up. Richard Tomlinson has claimed that ‘…one of the paparazzi that night was working for MI6, too. He’d have been on a fast motorbike…'(21)

Although some witnesses remember seeing a white Fiat (possibly with dog in the back seat) ‘…dart out of the tunnel seconds after the crash’,(22) other accounts differ. For example, Gary Hunter, a British lawyer on holiday in Paris, was watching television in his hotel room when he heard the crash. ‘I went to the window and saw people running towards the tunnel…’. Seconds later he saw a ‘small dark car’ (possibly a Fiat Uno or Renault) turning from the area by the tunnel exit and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon….’. He also claimed that it was being ‘…shadowed by a second vehicle, a white Mercedes’.(23)

Brenda Wells, said that ‘after a party with my friends, I was returning home. A motorbike with two men forced me off the road. It was following a car…After that a big black car arrived. The big car [the Mercedes] had come off the road.'(24)

In the ITV documentary Diana – the Paris crash, Anthony Scrivener QC (together with Murray Mackay, a forensic expert on car crashes based at The University of Birmingham) concluded that a ‘…white Fiat Uno had straddled the middle of the tunnel, in an effort to slow down the Mercedes, and allow a powerful motorcycle to cut in front of the Mercedes, causing the fatal crash. Both the Fiat and the motorcycle sped out of the tunnel and disappeared from sight, according to a number of eyewitness descriptions.'(25)

Jean Pietri, the engineer commissioned by Thomas Sancton and Scott Macleod to produce a report on the technical aspects of the crash for their book Death of a Princess,(26) argues that the initial collision between the Mercedes and the Fiat occurred before the Mercedes entered the Tunnel. The actual crash was caused by the Mercedes, blocked by another – slower moving – car in front of it, taking avoiding action and hitting the tunnel pillar.(27)

After the crash

There are reports of a lone individual either chasing people away or shouting at people to keep away directly after the accident.(28) This could have been the man who ran out of the Tunnel immediately before the crash, yelling ‘..get back, it is going to explode’.(29)

Three American tourists, Tom Richardson, Joanna Luz and Mike Walker, running into the Tunnel to offer assistance, said that they saw someone jump out from the crashed car. There is speculation that this may have been the same person who is thought by some to have moved Henri Paul’s body off the car horn to stop it sounding.(30)

Diana’s medical treatment

The first medical workers on the scene were said to have found ‘…an elegantly coiffed woman sitting on the floor of the car with her legs up on the rear seat, leaning against the back of the front passenger seat.'(31) Frederic Maillez, a medical practitioner who happened to be in the vicinity, found Diana ‘…groaning and making movements with her hands’ but added that she ‘did not seem desperate’.(32) Other reports have her either drifting in and out of consciousness, or regaining at least a state of semi consciousness, speaking a few words and seeming confused and agitated. It has also been rumoured that the paparazzi photographs developed by French investigators allegedly showed Diana with her eyes open, apparently conscious and unhurt, and with no sign of blood on her body or her clothes.(33) Some early BBC bulletins even went so far as to describe her as ‘…walking and talking with a broken arm…'(34)

Although the initial diagnosis of Diana’s condition may not have found her injuries to be ‘catastrophic’, it was later reported that she was bleeding massively from internal injuries.(35) This meant that her blood pressure would have dropped to an extremely critical level and, according to some medical opinion, she should have been moved to hospital immediately.(36)

The delay in getting her to hospital, however, was not necessarily due to negligence, but resulted from standard French medical procedures which entail stabilising accident victims as much as possible before moving them to hospital.(37)

Diana was eventually released from the wreckage of the car and placed in the ambulance.(38) It then took some 40 minutes for the ambulance to travel the four miles to the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, a journey which, given the lack of traffic and the fact that a police escort was provided, could have been completed in 10 minutes. The official explanation is that the ambulance proceeded slowly (5 mph at some points) so as not to aggravate Diana’s injuries.(39) Almost within sight of the Hospital, at the Pont d’Austerlitz, the ambulance is reported to have pulled off the road in order for Diana to be given adrenaline. Hospital doctors are later said to have denied that this took place.(40)

Some reports say that Diana’s injuries were so great that she was unlikely to have lived. Other sources opine that the delay in getting her to hospital eliminated whatever chance she had of surviving.(41)

Henri Paul

The character and behaviour of Henri Paul has been subject to intense speculation following the events of 31 August 1997.(42) With the exoneration of the paparazzi, Paul is regarded by many as the ultimate cause of the crash, a view supported by the French Public Prosecutor’s Report. As with the circumstances of the crash, however, there are a number of grey areas and issues that still remain unresolved.

Alcohol and drugs – the lethal cocktail

The immediate cause of the crash has been blamed on Henri Paul’s drunk and drugged condition, although video footage from the Ritz’s security cameras showing him prior to the crash doesn’t indicate this. Moreover, Trevor Rees-Jones has denied that he was drunk and it seems unlikely that he would have got in the car with Paul at the wheel if he had thought otherwise.(43) The argument for Paul being under the influence of a lethal cocktail of drugs and alcohol rests on the blood samples taken from his body. If these were accurate, they would appear to contradict the video footage mentioned above. As the head of the anti-poison centre at a major Paris hospital was quoted as saying: ‘I don’t see how he could walk in that state, much less take the wheel.'(44)

There seem to be three possibilities:

  1. his blood samples were swapped at some point. This is unlikely as one of the investigating magistrates, Judge Stephane, took the unusual step of personally witnessing a new set of samples being taken from Henri Paul’s body. The results confirmed and amplified the original data.(45)
  2. his body was injected with drugs immediately after the crash, possibly by the individual seen getting out of the Mercedes(46)
  3. he was capable of drinking heavily yet could still appear to be sober.(47)

Carbon Monoxide

In the ITV documentary Diana – the Paris Crash, Anthony Scrivener concluded that

‘…the near-lethal dose of carbon monoxide found in [Henri Paul’s] blood samples could not be explained, given that video footage from the Ritz Hotel showed [him] engaged in normal conversation with guests and hotel staff in the two hours before the fatal crash. At the time those video shots were taken, if the blood samples were accurate, Paul would have had a 30 percent carbon monoxide level in his blood, and he would have been unable to stand up, his balance would have been way off, and he would have been doubled over in pain, from a severe headache in his temple.'(48)

Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary, The Accident, broadcast in 1998, also admitted that there was no satisfactory explanation for the presence of carbon monoxide.(49) It was argued that the carbon monoxide came from the Mercedes’ broken exhaust and was absorbed by Henri Paul immediately after crash. However, as his neck was broken Paul would have died instantaneously, and his body would have been unable to absorb the amount of carbon monoxide subsequently found in his blood.(50) The Mercedes’ air bags were thought to contain carbon monoxide, but this claim was later refuted by Daimler Benz. One other significant fact is that no one else in the car was found to have any trace at all of carbon monoxide in their blood.(51)

Henri Paul’s bank account

After the crash, investigations revealed large amounts of money in Henri Paul’s bank account – far in excess of what he would have been able to save from his Ritz Hotel salary. Where this money came from has never been satisfactorily explained.(52) One allegation is that Paul was in the pay of the paparazzi, receiving money from them in exchange for ‘…providing details of guest movements, enabling the photographers to be in position to snatch pictures of the celebrities.'(53) Richard Tomlinson believed that he was an MI6 informer paid to spy on Diana and Dodi. Other sources claim that Paul was also a Mossad agent and an informant for the French foreign intelligence service. As Head of Security at the Ritz, Paul would have been ideally placed to observe and monitor the comings and goings of the guests. Regular reporting to the security services may also account for the money in his bank account. The pressures involved, however, could also have made him ever more reliant on anti-depressants and alcohol.(54)

Other points

This has been a brief survey of the main features of the circumstances surrounding the crash. There are, however, several other points which deserve further investigation.

Some sources believe that stories blaming the paparazzi were used as a smokescreen to deflect attention from elsewhere. The absence of any British reporters or photographers at the Ritz Hotel on the night of the crash has also been commented on. Were they warned off?

Potentially important evidence such as oil, petrol, and glass appears to have been hastily removed from crash scene. As one accident expert put it, ‘…the French permitted the accident scene to become polluted…They [had] no remorse in opening up the roadway hours after the accident without preserving important evidence.'(55) For undisclosed reasons, the French police also declined Daimler Benz’s offer to send in their own engineers to assist in the investigation.(56)

There has been no explanation as to why the bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, strapped on his seat belt as the car entered the Tunnel. Normal practice is for bodyguards not to wear seat belts so that they can respond quickly in an emergency.(57)

There are rumours of electricity supplies in the Tunnel being cut off 25 minutes before the Mercedes entered it.(58) This may have a bearing on the fact that the CCTV cameras covering the Tunnel appear to have been out of action before and after the crash. When Mohammed Al Fayed’s lawyers requested copies of the tapes from the 17 cameras which covered the route from the Ritz to the Tunnel, they were told by the Paris police that no tapes existed for those cameras.(59)

Some witnesses remember hearing a helicopter overhead just before accident.(60)

What really happened? And what happens next?

On the surface the crash can still be seen as an accident, pure and simple. Yet to take this view one must accept that Henri Paul was unfit to drive that night. If he was unfit why did no one at the Ritz Hotel stop him from driving? Again, there are contradictions. Some deny that Paul was drunk or appeared drunk. Others say that he was in an excitable mood and showed obvious signs of having recently consumed alcohol.(61) But if he was so obviously drunk, why did none of his three passengers realise that he was unfit? It is also worth mentioning Jean Pietri’s comment, ‘….this poor fellow may have had a few drinks in him, but he was not without reflexes…He was totally in control of that car until the final leftward turn of the steering wheel.'(62)

Dodi Fayed’s love of fast cars suggests another theory: he told Henri Paul to drive fast and his instructions were obeyed, with fatal consequences.(63) This is contradicted, however, by the view of some technical experts that the speed of the Mercedes in the Tunnel was not as great as initial reports claimed.(64)

Now that the French investigation is over, the way is clear for an inquest on the death of Diana. Whether or not this will be followed by an official inquiry remains to be seen.

An unsuccessful nationwide search for the Fiat Uno was carried out by French investigators. Mohammed Al Fayed’s own investigating team announced that they had located the car following its sale in November 1997 to a garage near Paris. It was claimed that it had belonged to a photojournalist with an interest in Diana’s activities.(65)

Notes

  1. The timings have been taken from the French Public Prosecutor’s report into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. A translation was published in The Times, 4 September 1999. The text can also be found on Mohammed Al Fayed’s web site at: http://www.alfayed.com/dianaanddodi/frenchprosecreport.html
  2. Books written about the crash include:
    Christopher Andersen – The day Diana died, Blake Publishing, 1999
    Martyn Gregory – Diana: the last days, Virgin, 1999
    Simon Regan – Who killed Diana? 1998
    Thomas Sancton and Scott MacLeod – Death of a Princess: an investigation, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998
    Allan Silverman – Diana: the last 24 hours, Glitter Books, 1998
    Honourable mention should also be made of Aaron McCallum Becker’s Whose death in the tunnel?: the tale of a princess (Robert D. Reed, 1999), a novel putting forward the idea that someone else other than Diana died in the Alma Tunnel.
    Web sites and e-mail discussion groups have also proliferated. Some of the more substantial of the estimated 31000 web sites covering various aspects of the crash include:
    http://www.alfayed.com/dianaanddodi
    Sponsored by Mohammed Al Fayed, so hardly subjective, but it does contain some useful primary sources such as the French Public Prosecutor’s Report. It also carries the robust correspondence between Al Fayed and one of his chief detractors, Martyn Gregory. CCTV footage from the Ritz Hotel is also available.
    http://www.fulcrumtv.com/diana.htm Fulcrum TV produced the two ITV documentaries, Diana: secrets behind the crash and Diana: the Paris crash. The Web site carries the full transcript of the first documentary.
    http://www.ufomind.com/para/conspire/diana/
    Provides links to other Diana conspiracy Web sites.
    http://cnn.com/WORLD/9708/31/diana.links/index.html CNN’s coverage of the crash and its aftermath.
    http://www.internet-inquirer.com The Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board’s links to various topics relating to the crash.
    http://www.senderberl.com/diana.htm Sender, Berl & Sons Inc (Geopolitical Analysts) has an interesting Diana – cause of death Web site.

    The main current forum for e-mail discussion appears to be: alt.conspiracy.princess-diana

  3. Translation by the Associated Press of the Ruling by the investigating magistrates on the crash which killed Diana, Princess of Wales. Issued 3 September 1999. Most UK newspapers published this in full the following day.
  4. The French Public Prosecutor’s report into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Section D1023 – D4936
  5. One of Al Fayed’s more unlikely supporters has been Charles Wardle, the Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle. On 22 June 1999. He opened an adjournment debate on the accountability of the Metropolitan Police over the arrest of Al Fayed concerning the alleged theft of jewels from ‘Tiny’ Rowland’s Harrods’ safety deposit box. Wardle claimed that the arrest had been made to discredit Al Fayed because of his ‘…increasingly vocal protests that the Security Service…had not been sufficiently open about its activities in Paris when the [crash] occurred.’The full report of the debate can be found in House of Commons Hansard 22 June 1999, columns 1081-1088. Needless to say, it was barely reported by any of the media, with only The Observer managing a few paragraphs (Andy McSmith – ‘Arrest of Fayed “was intended to humiliate”‘ – The Observer, 27 June 1999).
    Charles Wardle’s earlier involvement with Al Fayed was somewhat less supportive. As a Home Office junior minister with responsibility for immigration, he rejected Al Fayed’s application for British citizenship.
  6. The chief suspects include:
    the House of Windsor and/or the Establishment – believed to fear that Diana would marry Dodi and could not accept the mother of a future monarch becoming a Muslim;
    the arms industry – angered by Diana’s involvement in the campaign to ban land mines;
    the security services, specifically MI6. The American, French, South African and Israeli secret services may also have provided assistance.

    ‘There’s an arrogant faction inside MI6, part of the Eton/Oxford/Guards clique, who see themselves literally as defenders of the realm – and for them that means the royals.’ (Interview with Richard Tomlinson. Available at: http://www.anaserve.com/~wethepeople/tomlin2.html)

    One account says that six MI6 agents were stationed in the British Embassy in Paris on the weekend of the crash. At least one officer was detailed to shadow Diana and Dodi after their arrival from Sardinia (Stuart Qualtrough and David Brown, ‘The two vital questions…’ – The People 9 November, 1997.

    Another school of thought believes that Dodi was the intended target and Diana happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    It may also be worth recalling that Diana, herself, feared for her life. Charles Wardle summarised her concerns in the adjournment debate mentioned above:

    ‘Diana’s remarks to Al Fayed concerned the royal household’s antipathy to her; its habitually close links with the security services; the manipulation, interference and control, as she saw it, exercised by officials of the household; her conviction, based on what she said that she had been told, that Barry Mannakee’s death was not an accident; and her apprehension that she, too, would be assassinated.’ (House of Commons, Hansard 22 June 1999, column 1084)

    Wardle also mentioned one of her former lovers, James Hewitt: ‘Hewitt said that he received threats to his life. Patrick Jephson, a private secretary, said that his safety could not be guaranteed. Members of the [royal] household told him that his safety would be in peril if he did not back off [from his relationship with Diana]. Anonymous telephone calls warned him that he would meet the same fate as Barry Mannakee. He said that the Princess of Wales took the threats seriously and told him that Mannakee had been murdered.’ (House of Commons Hansard 22 June 1999, column 1085).

    Barry Mannakee was Diana’s personal protection officer and rumoured to be her lover. In 1986 he was moved away from Diana to the diplomatic protection group. The following year he died in a motorcycle accident. (Penny Junor, Charles: victim or villain? HarperCollins, 1998 pp.136-137)

  7. New Idea – Interview with Richard Tomlinson op. cit.
  8. Fenton Bresler – ‘The Importance of “Thierry H”…’ – Daily Telegraph 24 July 1999 p.3. Bresler also casts doubt on Martyn Gregory’s assertion that the Henri Paul intended to shake off the paparazzi by driving through the back streets of central Paris.
  9. According to Richard Tomlinson, MI6 would have ‘…sophisticated radio transmitters that would knock out the electronics of the limo at the press of a button, causing the air bags to inflate.’ (New Idea – Interview with Richard Tomlinson op. cit.)

    ‘The modern digital car is essentially a computer with four wheels…Easy to program a runaway digital accelerator, which could also be activated remotely via [a] radio signal. Easy to program and activate lockouts for digitally controlled brakes, transmission, ignition, so that even an unimpaired driver cannot cope.’ (Posting by Pat to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 3 September 1997)

  10. Stuart Qualtrough and Jilly Beattie, ‘Was Diana murdered?’ – The People 2 November 1997
  11. Ibid. See also Stuart Qualtrough, ‘Was Diana murdered?’ – The People 26 October 1997
  12. Posting by Julian R to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 2 September 1997
  13. Posting by Pat to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 3 September 1997
  14. Posting by Ellen to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 19 September 1998. This posting gives a further reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/diana/stories/crash0831.htm
  15. Posting by Kitty to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 15 August 1998.
  16. MI6 had at one time considered assassinating President Milosevic by ‘…disorientating [his] chauffeur using a blinding strobe light as [his car] passed through one of Geneva’s motorway tunnels.’ (Richard Tomlinson’s statement of 11 September 1998 to John Wadham of Liberty concerning MI6’s 1992 proposal to assassinate President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia.) Available on David Shayler’s web site at: http://www.inside-news.ch/shayler/%21milosev.html
  17. France-Soir 10 September 1997.
  18. Posting by Tracey to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 4 August 1998.
  19. Thomas Sancton and Scott MacLeod, Death of a Princess: an investigation, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998, p.185.
  20. Sancton and MacLeod – op. cit. pp.191-193.
  21. New Idea – Interview with Richard Tomlinson op. cit.
  22. Lara Marlowe, ‘French investigation of tunnel crash goes on generating cash and controversy’, Irish Times 31 August 1998 p.11.
  23. Witness saw car flee from crash that killed Princess Diana – Agence France Presse International report 21 September 1997. Qualtrough and Beattie op. cit..
  24. Witness saw car flee from crash that killed Princess Diana – Agence France Presse International report 21 September 1997. Nick Pisa and Tracy Schaverien, ‘Three vital questions’, Sunday Mirror 21 September 1997, pp.4-5. Brenda Wells disappeared from her flat in Champigny sur Marne shortly after giving her statement to French police. It subsequently transpired that she and her husband had been told to go into hiding and not to speak to anybody about what she had seen. (Nick Pisa and Matthew Bell, ‘I won’t rest till I know if Diana and my Dodi were murdered’, Sunday Mirror 9 November 1997, pp. 2-3) The couple certainly seem to have followed the advice as no mention of Brenda Wells is made in any of the books on the crash.
  25. ‘New evidence refutes French decision not to prosecute anyone in Diana-Dodi crash’, Executive Intelligence Review News Service report,14 September 1999. (The involvement of Executive Intelligence Review would normally sound warning bells, but on this occasion its summary of the programme’s contents and conclusions is accurate and unsensational.)
  26. Jean Pietri, Accident du Passage Souterraine de l’Alma, Paris, Dimanche 31 Aout 1997, 0h 25. Proposition d’Analyse Scientifique et Technique. Synthese et Conclusions, 1997. Report commissioned by Thomas Sancton and Scott MacLeod and summarised in Death of a Princess: an investigation pp. 215-225
  27. Ibid. pp.219-223
  28. Posting by Carol R to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 2 September 1997 Posting by James to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 3 September 1997.
  29. Posting by Kitty to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 15 August 1998. Posting by JoD to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 3 September 1997
  30. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc – Princess Diana – Updated Analysis Web Page – 15 October 1997 update. The web site is at: http//www.senderberl.com/diupdate.htmPosting by Ellen to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 19 September 1998.
  31. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc – Princess Diana – Updated Analysis Web Page – 9 October 1997 update. This quotes an untitled article in Time dated 13 October 1997.
  32. Stuart Qualtrough and David Brown, ‘The Two vital questions…’, The People 9 November, 1997, pp.6-7.
  33. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc – Princess Diana – Updated Analysis Web Page – 13 October 1997 update.
  34. Posting by Carl B to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 3 September 1997.
    Posting by Gavin to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 4 September 1997.
  35. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc – Princess Diana – Updated Analysis Web Page – 13 October 1997 update.
  36. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc – Princess Diana – Updated Analysis Web Page – 9 and 13 October 1997 updates. Sancton and MacLeod op. cit. pp.30-31.
  37. Ibid. p.29
  38. Accounts vary as to how long it took to release Diana from the wreckage. The French Public Prosecutor’s Report states she was released at 01:00 (c30 minutes)
  39. ‘The Mysteries that can’t be explained’, The People 26 October 1997 pp. 6-7
  40. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc – Princess Diana – Updated Analysis Web Page – 15 October 1997 update.
  41. Sancton and MacLeod op. cit. pp.30-31. The choice of the Pitie Salpetriere Hospital rather than one of the four hospitals that were closer to the crash scene has been questioned. It has been argued that, although not the nearest hospital, it was the best equipped and best staffed to handle such emergencies. The Pitie Salpetriere is also officially designated by the White House for the treatment of high ranking US officials visiting Paris. (Christopher Andersen, The day Diana died, London: Blake Publishing, 1999, p.203).
  42. Sancton and MacLeod op. cit. pp.142-153 and Andersen op. cit. pp.142-153 both provide background information on Henri Paul.
  43. Alex Richardson and Tim Moynihan, ‘TV claim on Diana rejected by guard’ – The Scotsman 5 June 1998, p.11. Other witnesses to Paul’s behaviour on the night contradict Trevor Rees-Jones’ account.
  44. Untitled article in Time 31 August 1998. Details posted by Boon to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 5 November 1998
  45. Sancton and MacLeod op. cit. p.201
  46. Qualtrough and Beattie op. cit.
  47. A view held by Paul’s alleged Mossad controller in Paris (Gordon Thomas, Gideon’s spies: the secret history of The Mossad London: Macmillan, 1999 pp.5-6)
  48. ‘New evidence refutes French decision not to prosecute anyone in Diana-Dodi crash’, Executive Intelligence Review News Service report, 14 September 1999.
  49. Alex Richardson and Tim Moynihan op. cit.
  50. John Sweeney, ‘Fayed unmasked’, The Observer 7 June 1998 p.3. Steve Anderson, ‘The Final mystery’, The Guardian 8 June 1998 p.110 (Anderson – ITV’s Controller of News and Current Affairs – was taking the opportunity to defend Diana: secrets behind the crash, which had been broadcast earlier that month).
  51. Posting by Ann to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 17 January 1999.
  52. This included regular payments of £4000.00 a month. (Silverman op. cit. p.149).
  53. Thomas op. cit. p.6
  54. New Idea – Interview with Richard Tomlinson op. cit.; Sancton and MacLeod op. cit. p 143 Thomas provides a detailed account of Mossad’s recruitment of Paul. A psycho-profile was drawn up, indicating ‘…an inherent vulnerability… and concluding that the most effective way to recruit Paul would be …steadily increasing pressure, linked with the promise of substantial monetary reward to finance [his] social life… (p.5) This social life included the expensive hobbies of driving fast cars and piloting a small aircraft.’ (p.7) (Thomas op. cit. pp.6-11).
  55. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc – Princess Diana – Updated Analysis Web Page – 30 September 1997 update.
  56. Posting by Asle to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 4 September 1997.
  57. Nick Pisa and Tracy Schaverien op. cit.
  58. Posting by C.h. to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 9 May 1998.
  59. ‘…French authorities insist that [the cameras] were not recording any images at the time [of the crash].’ Sancton and Macleo op. cit. p.235
  60. According to NBC ‘….. Paris has the most sophisticated video surveillance system of any city in the world. While not every camera is monitored, all cameras record to videotape. Tapes are saved for 2 days in the event they’re needed to review crime or auto accidents.’ But not, apparently, on this occasion… (Posting by Bill to The First Diana Conspiracy Site – 4 September 1997)
  61. Posting by Liz to the Conspiracy Theory Discussion Board – 18 August 1998.
  62. Sancton and MacLeod op. cit. pp.136-137, 152-153 Andersen also hints that Henri Paul may himself have had suicidal tendencies. (Andersen op. cit. pp.171-173).
  63. Sancton and MacLeod op. cit. p.211.
  64. Silverman op. cit. pp.158-159. Pietri estimated a final speed on impact of 95km/h or less. Two experts based at the University of Birmingham’s Accident Research Centre estimated the Mercedes’ speed to be 70km/h or 96km/h. 96km/h is the equivalent of 60mph. (Sancton and Macleod op. cit. pp.223-224)
  65. Allan Silverman, Diana: the last 24 hours, Glitter Books, 1998 pp.141-142.

Accessibility Toolbar