In his many years as a judge, Lord Justice Scott Baker has played numerous
distinguished roles. He served on the ground-breaking Warnock committee on
the ethics of embryo science, and famously jailed a former cabinet minister,
Jonathan Aitken. But his long career will now be remembered for his
nominally lowly – and temporary – role as west London’s deputy coroner.
This is the position he will hold for the duration of the inquest into the
deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, which started in earnest
last week at the High Court. The deputy coroner launched it with a brio that
had been kept under wraps during his many years on the bench: debunking
theories, revealing secrets and releasing film that has been kept under
wraps in the 10 years since Diana’s death.
Scott Baker will celebrate his 70th birthday midway through the inquiry into
an incident that rates alongside the shooting of President John F Kennedy as
the world’s most fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. Many believed that
he took on a poisoned chalice when he became the third coroner to be put in
charge of the inquest. It wasn’t just the 31 lever arch files, the hours of
closed circuit television footage and the other evidence he had to get on
top of. He also had to get to grips with 10 years’ worth of investigations,
legal actions, claims and counterclaims.
The deaths of the princess and her boyfriend in a Paris car crash have
attracted so much baggage that it will take six months to hear the evidence
at a cost to the taxpayer of £10m. This has been mostly fuelled by Mohamed
al-Fayed, who has repeatedly suggested that his son Dodi was murdered by
Britain’s intelligence services at the behest of Prince Philip. Over the
coming months Michael Mansfield, the celebrity QC retained by Fayed, will be
calling 68 witnesses.
On the surface the inquest in Court 73 should be simple. The jury only has to
answer four key questions posed by Scott Baker in his opening address on
Tuesday morning. He told them: “You have to decide . . . who the deceased
were, when they came by their deaths, where they came by their deaths and
how they came by their deaths.”
The answers appear easy: Dodi and Diana died early on Sunday, August 31, 1997
after their chauffeur, who had been drinking and was driving too fast, lost
control of the car and crashed into a pillar in a road tunnel.
This is not what Fayed, or indeed many ordinary British people believe,
however. There have been many extraordinary claims, and several inconvenient
facts still remain. But in a razor-sharp opening address, Scott Baker
appeared determined to set the record straight for history’s sake. He had
mastered his brief over the summer months, providing one of the best
summaries of the known evidence.
In his many years on the criminal bench, he was accustomed to summing up the
evidence at the end of a trial. As a coroner, he has a much more active
role, liberating him to give an opinionated summing up at the start and to
bring in evidence he has himself unearthed. Startlingly, he released CCTV
footage never seen in public before, showing the doomed couple smiling and
canoodling before getting into their car.
As he outlined the story of that summer night, it was clear that some details
were beyond contention. But around them swirl the mists of conjecture and
pure fantasy that the learned judge has to cut through. He cannot simply
dismiss it all as nonsense. To settle the Diana case once and for all – at
least to the satisfaction of all but Mohammed al-Fayed and the most die-hard
conspiracists – he has to demonstrate what is fact and what is fiction.
One indisputable truth is that the Mercedes carrying the couple, their
bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, and Henri Paul, the driver, hit the 13th pillar
of the westbound carriageway of the Alma underpass.
Tomorrow evening the jury of six women and five men will be taken on a night
drive to the tunnel to familiar-ise themselves with the scene. They have
been told that the Mercedes was not a high-powered model, as has been
reported, but had the smallest engine in its class. It was, however,
travelling at about 60-65mph, twice the speed limit for the road.
“The effect . . . of hitting the pillar head-on was to stop the Mercedes
immediately and bounce it back,” Scott Baker told the inquest. “Tremendous
forces were transmitted through the vehicle and its occupants.”
It is also unchallenged that Diana died from a 2.5cm laceration to her
pulmonary vein where it joins the heart. The other passengers suffered
similar injuries, although Rees-Jones survived. Scott Baker argued that all
could have survived if they had been wearing seatbelts and if the car had
hit a wall rather than the pillar, because it would have dispersed the
impact. BEYOND these facts, conspiracy lurks. As Scott Baker told the jury:
“You will have to consider whether the precise nature of the impact could
ever have been planned in advance or orchestrated with any confidence.”
And what would have caused the driver to swerve into the pillar? One claim,
promoted by the Fayed camp, is that MI6 shone a bright light into the
driver’s eyes. This was taken up by Richard Tomlinson, the renegade former
MI6 agent, who claimed that while he was working with the Secret
Intelligence Service he read an assassination proposal that involved shining
a light into a driver’s eyes.
The deputy coroner was particularly harsh on Tomlinson, as it appears the
flash theory was not in the proposal the ex-spy had seen. “In his most
recent interviews with the Metropolitan police, Tomlinson . . . accepted
that the proposal did not contain anything about flashing lights. It is
something he added,” Scott Baker said with damning finality.
The theory is given credence, however, by a number of witnesses who claim they
saw bright flashing lights just before the crash.
Scott Baker suggested that most of these sightings could be explained by
vehicle lights or by the fact that the car was being pursued by
photographers using flash equipment. But Brian Anderson, a passenger in a
taxi that was overtaken by the Mercedes in the tunnel, has described a flash
of great intensity like “magnesium igniting” shortly before hearing an
explosion.
Whatever he saw and heard, experts at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
in Britain undermine the flash-assassin theory. They are convinced from
skidmark analysis that the car began weaving from side to side on a bend
before the entrance to the underpass. So the driver had lost control long
before any witness saw flashes.
As Scott-Baker told the jury: “If you are satisfied there was a loss of
control of the Mercedes some distance before the Alma underpass, any bright
lights or flashes when it was in the immediate approach to or in the
underpass itself cannot be responsible.”
It is still not clear why Paul drove into the tunnel on his journey from the
Ritz hotel to Dodi’s apartment.
Most professional drivers would have taken a sliproad to the right before the
tunnel, which would have gone directly to the apartment.
Scott Baker said: “Henri Paul started along the professional driver’s route
but then deviated from it.” He speculated that Paul may have been travelling
too fast to make the turn, because he was being followed by paparazzi. But
he added: “If he had taken that sliproad as being the quickest route, then
any conspiracy to do murder in the tunnel would have been certain to fail.”
Another possibility is that the sliproad was blocked by a car in the
right-hand lane. This leads to the second mystery: the missing white Fiat
Uno. There is no dispute that the Mercedes clipped the back end of a car,
leaving paint scratches on the side of the Mercedes and shards of plastic
glass on the road that were identified as coming from a Fiat Uno.
The point of impact is uncertain because the debris was strewn across the
road, but TRL researchers believe contact with the Uno could explain why the
Mercedes began swerving erratically as it rounded the bend into the tunnel.
All efforts to find this second vehicle involved in possibly the most famous
car crash in history have failed. The paint and debris narrowed the search
down to 4,668 cars between eight and 14 years old, but French police were
unable to locate all of them.
Fayed has claimed that the driver of the Fiat Uno was James Andanson, a French
photojournalist who had been one of the paparazzi photographing Diana and
Dodi earlier in the summer. Andanson died in a car fire in May 2000. A
French police investigation concluded that he had committed suicide.
The Harrods boss suggests that Andanson, acting under instructions from the
British secret services, deliberately drove the Mercedes off the road. Scott
Baker pointed out that there is no evidence linking Andanson to the secret
services.
When interviewed by French police Andanson denied that he had been in Paris on
the evening of the crash, although one set of friends say he later claimed
he was. He took a plane in the early hours after the crash and had documents
to prove it.
Scott Baker told the jury: “You will have to consider the possibility of
Andanson having been involved in the collision and yet having flown to
Corsica in the early hours of Sunday morning. You may think it would have
been theoretically possible, albeit very difficult, for him to have gone
home the 177 miles to Le Man-oir [his home] in the meantime.”
The deputy coroner also questioned whether Andanson would travel such
distances in a “clapped out” Uno, which was used as a runaround on his farm,
when he also owned a newer and more reliable BMW.
Examinations of Andanson’s Fiat showed that the paint was a similar type to
that found on the Mercedes except for on the rear left wing, which was the
likely area of impact. This wing had been repainted, and forensics experts
were unable to determine whether this was before or after August 31, 1997.
Scott Baker noted that the only other Fiat Uno to be checked also had paint
compatible with that found on the Mercedes. “It is also likely that there
are other Fiats which, on examination, would give . . . evidence which would
not conclusively exclude them from involvement in the incident,” he added.
MUCH of the inquest will be spent testing this and other allegations thrown
about by Fayed. His contention is that Dodi had to be killed because the
British Establishment could not accept an Egyptian Muslim as the stepfather
of the future king. “He places Prince Philip at the heart of the
conspiracy,” said Scott Baker.
To support these claims, Fayed argues that Diana was pregnant and was about to
announce her engagement to Dodi, who had bought an engagement ring for her.
He alleges that blood tests on Paul were falsified to make him appear over
the drink-drive limit, allowing the British and French authorities to
portray the murder as an accident by a speeding drunk.
The nature of the allegations means the inquest will spend much time examining
the state of the couple’s relationship and Diana’s state of mind.
Diana was certainly paranoid. The inquest heard that she told Lord Mish-con,
her lawyer, that efforts were being made to get “rid of her” by possibly
tampering with the brakes on her car. She also claimed that reliable sources
had told her the Queen was soon to abdicate and that there was a conspiracy
to “put aside” both herself and the then Camilla Parker Bowles.
She made a similar claim in a note to Paul Burrell, her butler in Kensing-ton
Palace. She wrote: “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake
failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to
marry Tiggy [Legge-Bourke, prince William’s and Harry’s nanny].”
Scott Baker noted that there was no evidence to show that Diana had her car
checked. “Her emotions may have been overriding her more logical thoughts,”
he said. “As events showed, her so-called ‘reliable sources’ certainly
proved wrong about the abdication and the future of Camilla Parker Bowles.”
There is no doubt, however, that she and Dodi were close. The footage from the
Ritz that was released last week shows the coupling laughing and snuggling
together.
Much will be made over coming weeks about Fayed’s claim that they were about
to become engaged. He says his son phoned him on the Saturday evening,
shortly before they died, to say he had collected a ring and that he and
Diana would announce their engagement on the Monday morning.
Scott Barker told the jury: “You will have to decide whether Dodi did indeed
phone his father in those terms and whether, if he did, what he said was
more than wishful thinking.”
It is possible that Dodi was about to propose, and there is evidence that he
bought a ring. But Diana’s friends are convinced she didn’t want to get
married. Lady Annabel Goldsmith spoke to Diana on the Friday before the
crash. When the subject of marriage was raised, Diana is claimed to have
said: “Annabel, I need marriage like a rash on the face.”
None of her friends say they had been told about the engagement and certainly
none had been told that she was pregnant, as Fayed claims. This allegation,
according to Scott Baker, arises from a picture of Diana in a leopard-skin
swimming costume that apparently shows a bump in her stomach. But he pointed
out: “The photograph in question . . . was taken on July 14 1997, before the
relationship with Dodi began.”
Diana – who was taking contracep-tive pills, according to Scott Baker – was
not examined for possible pregnancy by the French doctors who treated her on
the night of the crash. It was not relevant to the attempts to save her
life. It has since been impossible to carry out a proper test because her
body was embalmed.
Conspiracy theorists claim the embalming was an attempt to hide the evidence
of pregnancy. But royal staff who flew to Paris that day have described how
the decision fell to them to make before the Prince of Wales saw his
ex-wife’s body. It was a hot day and the body was in danger of decomposing
if they hadn’t acted.
The result, according to Scott Baker, is that “it is likely that pregnancy is
not a matter that can be proved one way or the other in scientific terms in
this case”.
The other key figure in the case is Paul, the dead driver. He was acting head
of security at the Ritz, which was owned by Fayed. It is Fayed’s contention
that Paul worked for the security services and was instrumental, perhaps
inadvertently, in the murder.
There are a few apparently strange facts about Paul. The 41-year-old earned a
modest income and yet owned £170,000 worth of stocks and shares. He had
£1,256 in francs on him when he died. However, Scott Baker points out: “He
was a single man with no children and had worked for most of his adult life.
Bearing in mind the Ritz’s clientele, you may think he was well positioned
to receive substantial tips.”
It also emerged that it was usual for him to carry large amounts of cash in
case he had to buy things for wealthy Ritz clients who didn’t carry money.
Paul’s blood has undergone tests that found him to be more than three times
over the French drink-drive limit. Bar bills show that he ordered two
Ricards – the strong pastis drink – that evening and he may
have been drinking earlier when he assumed he was off duty for the night.
Tests have thrown up a strange laboratory anomaly. They indicate that he had
high levels of carbon monoxide in his blood. This could have been a
byproduct of smoking but one sample from his chest was so high experts
believe he would have been visibly unwell.
The conspiracists claim Paul’s blood sample may have been switched with
an alcoholic tramp’s. But the samples contain traces of Paul’s medication
and the one with a high reading was matched to his DNA. “You will hear about
the work and also about all the criticisms which have been made of it,” said
Scott Baker.
Much will also be made of minute details in the case. CCTV footage has been
played to the jury showing Paul tying his laces (apparently to prove he was
not swaying drunkenly) and waving to photographers (as if he were conspiring
with them).
It is difficult to see the jury and the distinguished temporary deputy coroner
reaching a conclusion that differs from previous official investigations.
Both a French inquiry and Lord Stevens, the former head of the Metropolitan
police, found that the crash was a tragic accident, and nothing else.
Search for truth
Mohamed al-Fayed says Diana and his son were murdered to prevent a Muslim
becoming stepfather to Britain’s future king
Lord Justice Scott Baker gave a masterly summing up of the evidence. Now he
must try to settle the case once and for all
So, the photojournalist committed suicide by burning himself alive in a BMW?
Really?
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds more than a little fishy?
John, California, USA
There are several people who could have seen what it happened at the last minute , some paparazzi and the bodyguard who was in the front of the car . Why don't they give their evidence now and why the french don't want them to have their say as a duty in this trial .? It ' s very very strange and many details are so obscure you are obliged to think about a conspiracy or something worse [ but certainly not by those suggested by Mr Al Fayed .
gosselin, London, UK
only rees-jones knows what happened that night, so why is he not giving evidence, and no one believes that he cant remember , he is the only one who knows the truth.
karen leiper, aberdeen, scotland
The semi crucial point is that the whole environment is conspiratorial; is described in that vernacular. Diana has been bulimic, has had affairs, become attached to Dodi Fayed, a muslim, and possibly pregnant. It is Jeffrey Archer and Spooks all the way. Nothing so normal as a discreet golden handshake and a thoroughly enjoyable life with a desirable consort in one of the many attractive available resorts. Whatever the interpretation placed on the facts, the space between them, the linkage, is especially loquacious, and doesn t leave much room for doubt. It is surprising that hypnosis appears to be a legal taboo, because it could be one of the more reliable ways of orchestrating with confidence.
Henry Percy, London, UK