Princess Diana Murder Inquiry latest

Mohamed al Fayed said that:

"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. 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 said Diana and Dodi were preparing to announce their engagement when they died and is on record as believing the Princess was pregnant with Dodi’s child.

Lord Stevens chaired the previous inquiry, which al Fayed dismissed as a cover up. He has been offended by al Fayed’s allegations. The difficulty with anything that may have involved the secret hand of the state is that it is hardly going to find itself guilty of any wrongdoing.

For the umpteenth time we have heard that the real cause of the crash was that driver Henri Paul was very obviously drunk. This view is based on many people at the Paris Ritz having seen him drinking, staggering and acting like he was drunk. The inquest has been told that bar records from the Ritz suggest Henri Paul drank two double measures of Ricard liqueur. From my own experience, I don’t believe this would make an allegedly hardened drinker incapable. Of course he might have been pissed when he, an MI6 informer, was called in to drive the car at the last minute.

So far no one has been asked or explained why an obvious drunk was allowed to drive the Prince and Dodi. But none of the real questions have been answered. Mr al Fayed is also likely to be challenged to produce evidence backing up his allegation that MI6 were involved in the crash. MI6 are good and the press gagged on these matters, so there won’t be any evidence. The court heard that al Fayed 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. He also believes a mystery white car, possibly owned by photographer James Andanson, who is now dead, played a role.

The only wise conclusion must be that Princess Diana’s death was mysterious and the State and arms industry had motives to want her out of the way. She had been told to shut up before and gave a press conference to say that she was taking a lower profile. The press wouldn’t let her and she appeared out on the trail proclaiming against the evils of land mines. However, in my view she signed her death warrant by telling TV interviewer Martin Bashir that there were three people in her marriage. We are supposed to look up to Royals. She gave us good reason not to. With so little else of good example in our crumbling society, this is a big problem and needs fixing. MI5 and MI6 have their roles to play and no one is going to stop them. Read ex MI5 agent, Peter Wright’s ‘Spy Catcher. The Thatcher Government spent a fortune trying to ban it and it’s still banned here. It contains evidence of Tories and MI5 using dirty tricks to bring down the Wilson government. I read a copy smuggled in by a Canadian friend. MI6 and MI5 are capable of murder- they are not the nice guys from Spooks on the telly.

The inquest has heard there is no medical evidence Diana was pregnant. Since she was embalmed within a few hours of her death, there wouldn’t be. Given that an autopsy and inquest was inevitable, none of the excuses for embalming her body make any sense. The jury heard evidence that Dodi did buy Diana a ring - a diamond-crusted design from the Repossi jewellers - hours before their deaths. Mr al Fayed’s words that it was an engagement ring count for little against those who have told the court that it wasn’t.

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- though what that has to do with the case I have no idea. One should hark back to the curious case of Diana’s butler Paul Burrell. He was accused of stealing Diana’s property. Then very suddenly the Queen stepped in and the case against him was dropped. What was he in danger of saying? We’ll never know.

One wonders how the jury for the current inquiry was picked because its findings are a foregone conclusion. 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. He believes results were faked as they could have been, given all the other mysteries about this case, I am not sure Henri Paul was distracted by the stun gun flash, as suggested by al Fayed, but the speed camera in the tunnel was working because a woman got a ticket from it a short while before. So why were there no speeding pictures of Henri Paul? Why was the car diverted through the tunnel when there was nothing wrong with the shorter above ground route? Why were there no security cameras working along the car’s route that night?