Tomorrow marks the 20 year anniversary of the Princess’s, Dodi Fayad’s and Henri Paul’s death, and with several conspiracy theories flying around the internet, I wanted to collate all the facts, which would enable you to come to a clearer decision about whether their passing was an accident, a matter of coincidence or an assassination. Since there is little evidence leading to one origin and because the crash may well have been an innocent accident, it would be unfair to pin the blame on anyone particular.
These are merely the facts about that fateful night, that have lead theorists to believe there is more to this case than what initially meets the eye:
The bodyguard (Trevor Rees-Jones) didn’t die in the collision, even though he was seated in the front, the most impacted part of the car.
Rees-Jones was never interviewed, despite the week-long news following the deaths, which only took a 30 minute break for Coronation Street.
Blame was always on people (e.g. the driver, Henri Paul, or the journalists) , rather than the car, making it seem like the car was not tampered with.
In the 1st urine/blood test, there was no alcohol present in the deceased driver, yet the 2nd showed him to be 3 times over the drink-driving limit. His organs ceased to function, so how did his alcohol content rise?
Paul was said to have drank 8 spirits before sitting behind the wheel.
Photographers followed the car, always wanting the best shot of Diana, but they obeyed the speed limit, so were further behind.
The investigations stated that Diana was not wearing her seatbelt – but because some journalists were trying to free her from the annihilated vehicle, this must have first been attempted by removing such seatbelt.
The speed limit was 31mph, however the car was travelling at a predicted 65mph.
The rather uncustomary history of the vehicle – bought new in September 1994, stolen 3 months later, driven abysmally causing it to roll several times an being found upside down in a field, being written off, then repaired, recovered and sold on 2 months before the fatal day. It was warned that the car drove increasingly perilously after speeds of 37mph – Paul drove at almost double that already pernicious velocity.
Diana was proved ‘not-pregnant’ with Dodi Fayad’s child.
One of the most suspicious facts, and one used widely by those who believe it was an assassination was that 10 cameras should have tracked the car’s journey, yet none of them were in operation, and only weren’t for that night.
Diana wrote in a letter to her butler Paul Burrell: ‘Charles wants me dead in a car accident’. Was this merely a coincidence? Then 10 months before her death, she wrote another letter explaining a possible plot to kill her by tampering with the brakes on her car, however she never said who she suspected could have been behind it.
12 year old Prince Harry asked his father, Prince Charles whether his mum had died, due to the young man’s confusion since her death was not talked about, while the royals stayed at Balmoral Castle and didn’t publicly mourn.
On hearing the news, the Queen said, ‘someone must have greased the brakes’. Pipes were tested, however the evidence they provided was dismissed in the early stages. After their examination it was released that they made it ‘impossible to disprove tampering’.
The brake fluid was found to have high water levels, lowering the efficiency of the stopping agents; this evidence was also brushed off quickly.
The white Fiat Uno, which was a possible cause for further destruction of the vehicle and the chances of survival, was never traced, nor was its owner. One contender is French photojournalist (and security services agent) James Andanson, who committed suicide in 2000 – and was found in a burnt out vehicle. Critics say this was due to guilt, however since he had an alibi for the night that left 3 dead, many believe he was not the culprit. Another owner of a white Fiat Uno is Le Van Thanh, who throughout the case, refused to talk to Scotland Yard.
After reading the main facts about the events, I hope you can make more of an informed decision on the matter. Most of them can be argued for and against for both an assassination and an accident, so take from them what you will.