Graphic: the accident in the tunnel
The relationship
The claim Mohamed Al Fayed said that the Princess of Wales
and Dodi Fayed were in a serious relationship and intended to get engaged.
Mr Al Fayed told the inquiry that his son was going to present a ring to the
Princess on the night she died and that they would have announced their
engagement on September 1, 1997.
He also claimed that the Princess was pregnant and that the security services
became aware of this through monitoring their telephone conversations. This,
he maintained, provided a motive to murder them.
The investigation The Stevens team talked to the Princess’s
family and friends. Prince William told the team that he had no knowledge of
any plan by his mother to get engaged toFayed.
They also spoke to the Princess’s friend Lady Annabel Goldsmith, who spoke to
her two days before she died. She told the inquiry that in a phone call the
Princess said she was having a lovely time on holiday with Fayed but had no
plans to marry.
“I said , ‘You’re not doing anything silly, are you, like getting married?’
She replied: ‘Not at all. I’m being spoilt and I’m having a lovely time,
Annabel. I need marriage like a rash on my face.’ ”
When the Princess’s butler, Paul Burrell, suggested to her in a phone call
that Fayed might be preparing to propose marriage, she asked for advice. Mr
Burrell told the inquiry: “She didn’t want to accept it but didn’t want to
offend Dodi and seem ungrateful. I suggested she wear it on the fourth
finger of her right hand. She thought it was a clever solution.”
Mr Al Fayed also claimed to have information that the Princess and his son had
gone to the Repossi jewellers in Monte Carlo, where they selected an
engagement ring that was allegedly sent to Italy for sizing and later
collected by Dodi Fayed from a Repossi branch in the Place Vendôme, in Paris.
The evidence about selecting and purchasing the ring was contradictory, Lord
Stevens of Kirkwhelpington said. Fayed or the Princess might have seen an
item of jewellery in the shop window, but the company has no evidence of
work being carried out on the ring. Fayed did visit the Repossi branch in
the Place Vendôme on Saturday, August 30, 1997, and was shown a selection of
rings but he left with only a catalogue. Two rings were later sent to the
Ritz and Fayed selected one from the “Tell me Yes” range, regarded as an
engagement ring range. It was not pre-selected or sent to Italy for sizing.
The verdict The weight of the evidence is that Diana,
Princess of Wales was not intending to get engaged. Fayed may have meant to
propose but the only evidence is from Mr Al Fayed.
Pregnancy claims
The claim Mr Al Fayed claimed that the body of the Princess
was embalmed illegally in France and that this was done to conceal a
pregnancy.
The investigation No tests for pregnancy were carried out in France but the
Home Office pathologist carried out a full post-mortem examination and saw
no signs of pregnancy. There was no indication of pregnancy given by the
Princess to her doctor, family, friends or associates or those carrying out
“personal services” to her in the days before she died.
The Stevens team found a sample of the Princess’s blood in the wreckage of the
Mercedes in 2005. Tests showed no trace of the pregnancy hormone HCG, human
chorionic gonadotropin.
Lord Stevens’s report went on: “There is witness evidence from close friends
and others that the Princess of Wales in mid-August 1997 was in her normal
menstrual cycle. There is witness evidence that she was using contraception.”
Myriah Daniels, a holistic healer who travelled with the couple on board the
yacht Jonikal, said: “I know for a fact she wasn’t pregnant because she told
me she wasn’t and through the course of my work on her body I found no
indications to show me that she was.”
The verdict Pathological, scientific, medical, and anecdotal
evidence showed that Diana, Princess of Wales was not pregnant.
Perceived threats
The claim The inquiry investigated claims that the Princess
feared for her own safety and believed that there were plans to cause her
harm.
The investigation The inquiry heard that the late Lord
Mishcon, the Princess’s solicitor, made a note of a meeting with her in 1995
at which she told him that “reliable sources” had said to her that by 1996
efforts would be made to get rid of her, whether by her having a car
accident resulting from brake failure, or by arranging an injury so serious
that she would be declared unbalanced. “The Princess apparently believed
that there was a conspiracy and that both she and Camilla Parker Bowles were
to be ‘put aside’ ”, Lord Mishcon told the inquiry. Although he did not
believe that what she was saying was credible, Patrick Jephson, who was her
private secretary at the time, “half believed” the accuracy of her comments.
In addition Lord Stevens investigated a note left by the Princess in 1996 in
which she claimed that the Prince of Wales was planning an accident in her
car caused by brake failure to clear that way for him to remarry. It was
assumed that remarriage referred to Mrs Parker Bowles — but the Stevens
inquiry reveals that the note identified another woman. “There is a
generally held perception that this reference is to Camilla Parker Bowles.
This is not so. Operation Paget knows the identity of the woman named.”
However, it does not disclose it.
It was reported last night that the woman is Tiggy Legge-Bourke, the former
royal nanny, who is now married and living in South Wales. She declined to
comment.
The Princess told her friend Roberto Devorik that she feared three people:
Nicholas Soames, a friend of her husband; Robert Fellowes, the Queen’s
private secretary, who is married to the Princess’s sister; and the Duke of
Edinburgh. “She said of Robert Fellowes: ‘He hates me. He will do anything
to get me out of the Royals. He cost me the friendship with my sister’ — and
added: ‘Prince Philip wants to see me dead’.”
Mr Devorik said that the Princess had had a premonition that she would be
killed and was convinced that “they, the machinery” were going to “blow her
up”. After her Panorama broadcast the Princess said to a friend: “I am sure
Prince Philip is involved with the security services. After this they are
going to get rid of me.”
On the day after losing her HRH title she looked at a portrait of the Duke and
said: “He really hates me and would like to see me disappear. . . . He
blames me for everything.”
On a flight to Rome with Mr Devorik in August 1996, she said: “Well, cross
your fingers — any minute they will blow me up. . . You are so naive. Don’t
you see they took my HRH title and now they are slowly taking my kids? They
are now letting me know when I can have the children.”
But Lucia Flecha de Lima, another friend of the Princess, said she had never
spoken of such fears to her. “She never feared Charles. Prince Philip tried
to help her during the difficult period of her marriage, in his own way. He
was sometimes a bit brutal. I have read the letters. They were not unkind.
He is a clever man. He would not hurt her,” she told the inquiry.
The Duke saw no reason to comment when contacted by the Stevens team about the
allegations.
The verdict There is no supporting evidence to show any
grounds for the Princess’s repeated claims that she might be killed in a car
accident after the brakes were tampered with. The Princess believed that her
telephone conversations were being listened to and there may have been
attempts to listen to her conversations at home.
The paparazzi
The claim Mohamed Al Fayed claimed that the presence of the
paparazzi created the environment in which the collision could be arranged.
The investigation The Stevens inquiry went back over the
Frenchinvestigation into the actions of the paparazzi. They found that the
film seized from the cameras of those at the scene showed they were taking
photographs of the car or the occupants, or both, almost immediately after
their arrival at the scene as there were no emergency services visible in
their photographs.
But there was no evidence to show that those arriving immediately after the
crash, or later, deliberately interfered with attempts to save the
passengers in the car or undertook any actions that showed they were
involved in a conspiracy to harm them.
The verdict There is no evidence that others took advantage
of an environment created by the paparazzi, and neither is there evidence
that they colluded with others to create the circumstances that allowed
others to murder the Princess and Fayed.
Henri Paul
The claim The inquiry investigated allegations that the
driver worked for the security services, either of France or Britain, and
was instrumental in the plan to have the Princess killed.
The investigation The team looked at allegations that
incorrect information about Henri Paul’s fitness to drive because of alcohol
had been deliberately disseminated in order to cover up the real cause of
the crash, and that samples taken from his body were swapped by the security
services with those of another body so that toxicological results for the
French investigation did not relate to him.
Claims that Paul received payments from intelligence or security services
could not be proved or disproved by his accounts. “His cash flow could not
be accounted for solely from known income sources. In the absence of more
specific information, different inferences can be made in respect of his
finances,” the Stevens report said.
Some of the procedures and documentation relating to the first post-mortem
examination on Paul were not of the highest standard. Paul had beeen
drinking and was three times the legal limit in France and about twice the
legal limit for driving in Britain. But there was no evidence that he was
unsteady on his feet after his unexpected return to work on the night of
August 30.
“Although there is no definitive evidence that Henri Paul was an alcoholic
there is evidence of a perceived dependency on alcohol on the part of Henri
Paul himself,” the report said.
The verdict There is nothing to support the contention that
the samples analysed were not those of Paul’s blood. There is no evidence
that Paul was a paid informer of MI6.
The Mercedes
The claim That the car the Princess was travelling in was
tampered with.
The investigation The forensic accident investigator David
Price, a consultant at the Transport Research Laboratory, examined the wreck
for the inquiry. The report said: “David Price found nothing in his
examinations of the mechanical elements of the car that would have adversely
affected the control of the car or survivability of the occupants.
“His technical examination confirmed that none of the occupants of the car was
wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision.”
This differed from the original French investigation, which suggested that the
bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones may have been in the process of fastening the
belt in the front passenger seat at the time of the accident.
All the seat belts were in good working order, it said.
The verdict “There were no defects on the vehicle that could
have contributed to the causes of the crash. There was no evidence of
tampering. or interference with the vehicle.” Suggestions that the
speedometer was stuck at 192km/h (120mph) after the crash were not correct,
the report said. The instrument had returned to zero after impact and tests,
backed by today’s report, suggested the crash speed was about 65mph.
()
The accident
The claim Mr Al Fayed alleged that a vehicle may have blocked
the Mercedes, ensuring it went into the underpass, and that a bright flash
may have unlawfully contributed to the crash.
The investigation There was evidence of bright lights and
flashes near the Mercedes after the crash. The Mercedes began to lose
control before the underpass so bright lights or flashes in the immediate
approach to or in the underpass were not contributory causes to the loss of
control.
The verdict No evidence of any vehicle blocking the Mercedes
and forcing Paul to taken the embankment expressway.
The aftermath
The claim The Princess could have been saved if she had been
taken immediately to the nearest hospital. Mr Al Fayed claimed that, en
route to Pitie-Salpetrière, the ambulance passed another hospital and
because it took two hours to get her to treatment her chances of survival
were minimal.
The investigation Sébastien Dorzée, a police officer, was one
of the first to answer the emergency calls. He was asked to keep talking to
the Princess to keep her conscious. She was badly injured with blood coming
from her nose and mouth. Her head was between the two front seats.
He told investigators: “She could see her boyfriend just in front of her. She
moved, her eyes were open, speaking to me in a foreign language. I think she
said, ‘My God’ on seeing her boyfriend. At the same time she was rubbing her
stomach. She must have been in pain.”
“She turned her head towards the front of the car, saw the driver and then I
think she had an even better realisation of what was happening. She became
quite agitated. A few seconds later she looked at me. Then she put her head
down again and closed her eyes.”
Medical evidence showed that by the time the Princess arrived at the hospital
she was unconscious and on a ventilator. She went straight into treatment
and never regained consciousness.
She was given emergency treatment at the crash site before being moved to
hospital four miles away where she died. She had treatment and surgery
before being pronounced dead at 4am.
The inquiry found no evidence to show that any alternative treatment would
have saved the Princess. There is medical debate about stabilising a crash
victim before moving them to hospital. French practice at the time was to
stabilise first but neither action would have saved her.
The ambulance did pass the Hôtel-Dieu hospital but it had no equipment for
dealing with her injuries. The crash was at 12.23am and she arrived in
hospital at 2.06am. It took 26 minutes to get her to Pitie-Salpetrière. The
ambulance travelled slowly because of fears about her low blood pressure and
stopped at one point.
The verdict A conspiracy would have required the agreement of
medical specialists of some distinction following a plan of collaboration.
Stevens said: “The evidence is that every effort was made to save her life.”
The embalming
The claim Mr Al Fayed maintained that Diana was embalmed in
France to conceal her pregnancy and the actions of the French authorities
were orchestrated by the British Ambassador and MI6.
He said that Dominique Lecomte, the pathologist who carried out an external
investigation of the body, gave the authority for the embalming although it
was unclear if the Royal Family or anyone else had given instructions.
As part of the cover-up Paul Burrell, the Princess’s butler, allegedly
collected her blood-stained clothes despite the fact that the death was
being treated as potentially suspicious. He later burnt the clothes.
The investigation No pregnancy test was carried out in France
or Britain. “The only concern of the medical staff was emergency treatment
to save her life. After the Princess was pronounced dead there was no need
for further tests,” said the report.
No pregnancy tests were carried out in Britain because it was not relevant to
the cause of death. The embalming was legal and authorised by a senior
policeman and the British Consul-General, and the French pathologist was not
involved. A French embalmer believed that no other method — such as dry ice
— would work because of the extent of the injuries.
Mr Burrell told the inquiry that he had seen Diana’s clothes in a bag in the
surgeon’s room in Paris. The records show that he signed for them but he
cannot remember doing so.
He said that the “clothing that had been taken off the princess in Paris was
returned to me the next day at Kensington Palace”. They included “her white
pedal pusher trousers that I had brought her for the holiday. They were
clearly blood-soaked”.
After talking to Lucia Flecha de Lima, “I destroyed them for health reasons. I
did not know what else to do”. He had never seen the Princess’s outer
clothing since the crash.
There is no evidence to show MI6 had any involvement with the embalming. Sir
Michael Jay, the British Ambassador, denied being involved in the decision
about embalming and the report finds no reason to doubt him.
The verdict “The evidence shows that all those involved in
the decision to embalm the Princess of Wales believed it was necessary to
make her body presentable before viewing”, Lord Stevens concluded. Stevens
said: “There is no indication that the burning was anything but an innocent
act.”
The French inquiry
The claim The French authorities did not carry out proper
investigations at the scene of the crash and deliberately prevented
investigators for the family of Henri Paul from getting body samples and
blood for independent tests. The body was released for burial on the
condition that no tests were carried out.
French police were accused of not roping off the scene for long enough for
detailed work. Traffic investigations and a photograph of the Mercedes
entering the tunnel showing its speed were suppressed.
A statement by Eric Petel, a motorcyclist, who claimed to be first on the
scene and described hearing an “implosion” just before the crash, was
suppressed by police and later lost.
The investigation The autopsies on Paul’s body were carried
out by the French authorities. There were two; in France they can only be
carried out by a doctor appointed by the authorities. Blood and tissue tests
can also only be carried out by authorised experts.
Herve Stephan, the investigating magistrate, agreed to release the body but
did not stipulate that there should be no further tests. However, the law
would not have allowed them.
French investigators told the British inquiry that the accident scene was
treated the same as any other. Roads are usually opened quickly to get
traffic moving but are closed again later if there is more work to be done.
The traffic investigator’s report under the French system is part of a
dossier of material held by the investigating judge.
The Stevens inquiry found that the photograph of the Mercedes was taken
outside the Ritz and not at the tunnel. They traced the photographer who
took it as the couple were leaving on their final journey.
The report said that Mr Petel’s evidence should be treated with caution and
“there is no corroboration for his account. The evidence available from
other winesses contradicted his view that he stopped and tended the Princess
of Wales. Those arriving at the scene would surely have seen him at the car”.
The French thought that he might have been a motorcyclist who had driven close
to the crashed Merecedes without stopping, but at one point his claims were
described as “pure fabrication”.
The verdict None of the claims was proven.
The white Fiat
The claim The Al Fayed team claimed that the white Fiat Uno
that hit the Mercedes on the Alma underpass was driven by James Andanson, a
French photographer who had been working in the south of France watching the
Princess and Dodi Fayed.
His father claimed that Mr Andanson had been turned by the French and British
security services. He was “murdered” in May 2000 to silence him and his
death was never properly investigated.
The French investigating magistrate halted the search for the Uno without
reason.
The investigation Mr Andanson was not in Paris on the night
of the crash. His wife told the investigation that he was at home with her
at Lignieres, 170 miles from Paris, on the night of the crash and left at
4am to fly to Corsica for an assignment.
He did own a white Fiat Uno and the evidence suggests it was at his home
outside Paris. At the time of the crash the car had done more than 360,000
kilometres and was nine years old. Police questioned him and examined and
eliminated the car from their inquiries in February 1998.
The French police believe that he committed suicide and the British team
agree. There is no evidence he was murdered or that he worked for MI6. The
burglary after his death was investigated and professional criminals were
arrested but nothing belonging to Mr Andanson was taken.
The French stopped hunting for the Uno in October 1998 after checking 4,668
cars. It has not been identified.
The verdict Mr Andanson had nothing to do with the Uno that
crashed into the Mercedes.
MI5 and MI6
The claim British security services were involved in a staged
accident to kill the Princess and Fayed. This was done to prevent an
announcement of the pregnancy and marriage of the couple. The plot was
launched at the behest of Prince Philip.
Mr Al Fayed supported his claims with details from Richard Tomlinson, who
worked for MI6, and David Shayler and Annie Machon, who had worked for MI5.
The investigation Police spent three weeks going through MI6
records. They interviewed all the MI6 officers in Paris in 1997. Many were
on leave in August 1997 and none knew Paul. MI6 records show no sign of MI6
operations at the hotel.
There were claims that two MI6 officers arrived at the embassy just before the
crash and left soon afterwards. Mr Tomlinson admitted to police he had been
wrong about the postings of the two, named as Richard Spearman and Nicholas
Langman, and admitted his suspicions “would appear to be unfounded”.
The two former MI5 officers told police that from their knowledge of the
service the Princess was not under surveillance.
The verdict “There is no evidence that any Secret
Intelligence Service (MI6) officer of any designation was involved in the
events surrounding the crash in the Alma underpass.”
All the evidence shows that MI6 did not know that the couple were in Paris and
there is no evidence to support the claims about Prince Philip.
