Put simply, the evidence amassed by Lord John Stevens, former boss of London’s Metropolitan Police, leads to just one conclusion. According to his report, published today, the crash that claimed the lives of Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed in a Paris underpass in the early hours of Aug. 31, 1997, was no more than “a tragic accident” attributable perhaps to a drunken error by chauffeur Henri Paul speeding to elude the pursuing swarm of paparazzi.
Of course, such a humdrum explanation—confirming an earlier finding by French authorities—will disappoint the legion of conspiracy theorists who have spent the last nine years gathering “evidence” of a murder plot and subsequent cover-up. Some polls suggest that up to one third of the British public believe dark forces were at work in Paris. A leading proponent of this theory: Mohamed Al Fayed, father of Dodi, who has alleged that both the royal family and the British security establishment may have been trying to stop the mother of an heir to the throne from marrying a Muslim.
But Lord Stevens was emphatic. Sure, there were still gaps in the narrative. Who for example was driving the mysterious white Fiat Uno that struck the Mercedes just before the fatal collision? Some facts might never be known for certain, but his 832-page report left no room for alternative explanations. “I am satisfied that no attempt has been made to hold back information, and we are confident that the allegations made are unfounded,” Lord Stevens said at a press conference in London today.
Start with the supposed motive. The relationship between the princess and Dodi Fayed, according to Stevens, was never as close as Dodi’s father had suggested. Friends had insisted to the inquiry that Diana was not engaged, a view endorsed by her son, Prince William. But was she pregnant at the time of her death, as sometimes claimed? Blood samples taken from the crashed Mercedes proved negative.
As for a plot, the couple’s behavior in the hours before the crash would have defeated any reasonable plans to set up a murder. Critically, the attentions of the paparazzi persuaded them to return to the Ritz Hotel unexpectedly and ditch their original itinerary. Driver Henri Paul was summoned back to work without warning after a three-hour break, hardly evidence of careful prearrangement.
And, yes, Paul was drunk at the wheel, as the French authorities have always insisted. There was no reason to dispute the tests that showed three times France’s legal limit of alcohol in his blood. Could the samples have been deliberately switched in an attempt to incriminate the driver—another Fayed claim? Impossible, according to Stevens. DNA tests had established beyond doubt that the sample came from Paul.
So are the wacky conspiracies finally laid to rest? Early signs are at least discouraging. Fayed, for one, remains unconvinced, calling the report “garbage.” I am certain, 100 percent, that a leading member of the royal family [has] planned that the whole plot, being executed in his order with the help of members of M.I.6," Fayed said at a news conference after the report’s release.
Such persistence is tough on the princess’s family. Her sons, Princes William and Harry, told of the report’s conclusions earlier this week, ahead of its publication, announced plans for a concert in their mother’s memory, and doubtless hoped the report would bring closure. In the words of her friend Rosa Monckton, in a BBC interview, “It’s time that the princess’s life was celebrated—it’s time that we thought about all the good that she achieved in her life.” Try telling that to the conspiracy theorists.
