After 3½ days of deliberation, the jury at the royal inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, finally delivered their verdict on Monday April 7. The 11 jurors sitting in London’s Royal Courts of Justice had patiently listened to six months of evidence given by 268 witnesses.
Their finding was that the 1997 crash which occurred in the Alma Tunnel in Paris had been caused by “unlawful killing – grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes”. The Royal Coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, pointed out that unlawful killing equates to manslaughter.
Did this final inquest answer the many questions that have surrounded the circumstances of the tragic crash? Did justice prevail, or was the inquest just another major event in continuing the cover-up of what truly happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?
One fact is certain: the over 7000 pages of inquest transcripts and evidence now comprise the most detailed account that exists of the Paris crash, and the circumstances and events surrounding it.
The jury also stated that “the crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving” of both the Mercedes and the following vehicles, and that the Mercedes driver’s judgement was impaired through alcohol.
This outcome from the inquest followed the French investigation which finished in September 1999, and the British investigation (Operation Paget) which was completed with the publication of the Paget Report in December 2006. Both these investigations found that the Alma Tunnel crash had been caused by a drunk driver – Henri Paul – who was speeding.    
Even after these two lengthy inquiries and now the inquest, there still remain critical unresolved issues.

Key Witnesses Missed 
During his summing up on March 31 of this year, Scott Baker claimed that the inquest had been extremely thorough and stated that the conspiracy theories regarding the crash ”have been examined in the minutest detail through the evidence of over 250 witnesses”.
The reality though is that there are over 50 important witnesses that were never cross-examined during this inquest. Some of these people’s evidence is so central to the conclusions drawn by the jury that the omission of it could cast doubt on the validity of the final verdict.
Because the crash occurred in France, most key witnesses were not residents of the United Kingdom and were therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Royal Coroner. Throughout the inquest the government of France, where these witnesses generally lived, solidly maintained a position of refusing to cooperate – it failed to enforce the appearance of people who did not wish to be cross-examined.
Included in this group of witnesses is Professor Dominique Lecomte, Head of the Paris Institute of Forensic Medicine – she is the pathologist who carried out the first autopsy on Mercedes driver, Henri Paul. The Paget report revealed that during that autopsy 58 identifiable errors were made, including the failure to properly identify the body. Lecomte also conducted the initial external medical examinations of Diana and Dodi’s bodies.
Another vital witness who evaded an appearance at the inquest is Dr Gilbert Pépin, the Paris toxicologist who carried out the alcohol testing on blood samples from both of Henri Paul’s autopsies. It is the results of his testing that led to the high blood alcohol readings that became the basis of the French and British investigations’ conclusion that the crash was caused by a drunk driver.
Generally during this inquest, when a witness was not made available for cross-examination, their French or British police statements were read out instead. In the case of Lecomte and Pépin, who both had signed statements with the British police, these statements were not read out to the jury. Thus the jury were not provided with any direct evidence from the two most important witnesses regarding the circumstances in which the alleged blood alcohol results from the driver of the Mercedes were based – yet it is these blood test results that are central to the jury finding that Henri Paul was guilty of gross negligence.
It is difficult to overstate the importance to this inquest of the evidence of Lecomte and Pépin. The question has to be asked: if Lecomte and Pépin have nothing to hide, then why did they not want to cooperate with the British inquest? If Princess Diana was murdered, then Lecomte and Pépin would have played key roles in the aftermath and the ensuing French cover-up. 
There are many other important witnesses who were not cross-examined. They include:

Lack of Jury Access to Evidence
The entire inquest process was hamstrung by the fact that witnesses were unable to clearly recall the detail of events that occurred so long ago. Throughout the six months of evidence, there were countless instances where those being cross-examined said, “I’m sorry. It is ten years ago now. I cannot remember.”
For the jury, this problem was exacerbated by the antiquated rule whereby they were unable to have access to witness statements given during the initial French investigation, and later British investigation. Many of the French eye-witness statements were taken within hours of the crash. It should be obvious to all concerned that these original statements taken very soon after the events would provide more accuracy than relying on witness cross-examination over ten years later.
On 11 December 2007 the jury themselves requested access to these statements. After some discussion in the Court, Scott Baker’s decision was “No, you cannot have the statements”.
It is evident that if this had been an inquest without a jury, then the Coroner would have had access to all witness statements. Why should a jury have been any different?     

Inadequacy of Early Investigations
The failure of the French authorities to carry out a thorough and adequate investigation in the first place, when the events were still fresh in the minds of key witnesses, also contributed to the difficulties that faced the inquest.
Take for instance the evidence of Alberto Repossi, the jeweller who sold Dodi Fayed the “engagement ring” (cross-examined 10 Dec 2007). Repossi was never interviewed by the French, and thus his first testimony was not taken until British Operation Paget officers interviewed him in September 2005, 8 years after the crash.
Likewise, Brian Anderson (Oct 17), a passenger in a taxi following behind the Mercedes, and thus a key eye-witness of the crash, according to police records was never interviewed by the French. His first official testimony was taken by British officers on 31 August 2004, precisely 7 years after the events he had to describe.    
To the shame of both the French and British investigators, there is no record of any attempts being made to locate the driver of the taxi Brian Anderson was in.
American Joanna da Costa (formerly Luz)(Oct 22), one of the first two pedestrian eye-witnesses on the crash scene, was never interviewed by the French investigation. Her only interview was taken by the British on August 23 2004, but for some unknown reason this testimony was never included in the official police Paget Report.
Where delays of up to a decade or more in the hearing of evidence have occurred, it is obvious that the accuracy of testimony could have been compromised.
The recently completed inquest did however help to highlight some of the areas where the early French investigation failed abysmally.
For example, the inquest has shown up mistakes that were made during the initial night-time investigations. Under cross-examination, French investigators have blamed some of these errors on poor lighting. Sergeant Thierry Clotteaux (Nov 6) admitted that “the lights were not so great”. Another police investigator Hubert Pourceau (also Nov 6) stated that a 19 metre Mercedes tyre mark was missed “because it was night-time and it was not very visible. They couldn’t see it.”
This begs the question, where was the forensic lighting that one would expect at any night-time crash scene, let alone the scene of arguably the most important car crash of the 20th century?
Investigators revealed that during the night they had to rely on the lights of the emergency vehicles, then after those had left the scene, they were reduced to using the dim tunnel lighting – apparently they never even had their own torches!
Diana’s Ambulance: “It was rocking”
On 17 October 2007 a statement given to the French investigation by Thierry Orban, a photographic reporter, was read out to the inquest.
Referring to the ambulance carrying Princess Diana, Orban stated: “I ... followed the ambulance, preceded by motorcyclists and followed by a police car which kept us at a distance. After the Pont d'Austerlitz, opposite the Natural History Museum, the ambulance stopped, the driver got out hurriedly and got into the back. That was when I took the only photo of the ambulance, which is in any case blurred. It was rocking, as if they were doing a cardiac massage.” This stoppage occurred within 500 metres of the hospital gates.
In his statement to Operation Paget, Dr Martino, who was inside the ambulance, explained the situation: “I had the vehicle stopped in order to re-examine the Princess.... I did not do any cardiac massage at that moment but it is not easy to do cardiac massage or resuscitation with a vehicle moving.”

The ambulance driver Michel Massebeuf’s statement to the French investigation was read to the inquest on November 14. He described what happened: “However, in front of the Jardin des Plantes, the doctor [Martino] asked me to stop. We stopped for about five minutes, in order for him to be able to provide treatment that required a complete absence of movement.”

This evidence raises the question: why did Thierry Orban witness a rocking ambulance if there was no cardiac massage taking place and “complete absence of movement” was required? This question was not put to Dr Martino when he was cross-examined on 24 January 2008
Thierry Orban and Michel Massebeuf’s statements were both inexplicably omitted from the Paget Report. Also, it is not known why Orban or Massebeuf have not been cross-examined during this inquest. 

Diana’s Anti-Landmine Campaign
A significant portion of inquest time was dedicated to evidence regarding the possibility that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death. This is a proposition put forward by the conspiracy camp as a possible motive for murder. The evidence, or lack thereof, has always indicated that this would appear to be an issue that is impossible to prove, either way.
If Diana was murdered, more likely as possible motives would have been other factors – the rapidly developing relationship between Diana and Dodi, or Diana’s prominent and effective involvement in the international anti-landmines campaign.
Diana’s anti-landmine activity was a possible motive for murder that was almost completely ignored by the 832 page Paget report, produced by Lord Stevens in December 2006.
Michael Mansfield QC, acting on behalf of Mohamed Al Fayed throughout the inquest, provided some compelling arguments regarding her campaign. 
During his cross-examination of the former Conservative Minister for the Armed Forces, Nicholas Soames (Dec 12), Mansfield quoted Soames’ Tory colleagues at the time. One told Diana, “Don’t meddle with things about which you know nothing”, whilst another described Diana as a “loose cannon” when referring to her visit to the minefields of Angola in January 1997. Soames himself portrayed Princess Diana in 1997 as a "totally unguided missile".    
Soames is also alleged, by Diana’s close friend Simone Simmons, to have directly threatened Diana with an “accident” if she continued with her anti-landmine activities.
On January 10 Simmons gave evidence of a 4 inch thick anti-landmine dossier which Diana compiled in the last year of her life – she had entitled it "Profiting from Misery". Simone Simmons stated that Diana claimed the dossier “would prove that the British Government and many high-ranking public figures were profiting from [landmine] proliferation in countries like Angola and Bosnia. The names and companies were well known, it was explosive and top of her list of culprits behind this squalid trade was the Secret Intelligence Service, the SIS [MI6], which she believed was behind the sale of so many of the British made landmines that were causing so much misery to so many people. 'I'm going to go public with this and name names', she declared.”
London Daily Mail journalist and close friend of Diana, Richard Kay (Dec 20), received a phone call from Diana just hours before she died.  He confirmed that during this call the Princess stated that she fully intended to “complete her obligations to ... the anti-personnel landmines cause”. Kay said that this would have involved a future visit to the minefields of South East Asia.  

Was there Judicial Bias?
During Scott Baker’s 2½ days of summing up to the jury, he made some statements that should be subjected to scrutiny:
On March 31 during his discussion of Diana’s fears for her life the Coroner stated: “One might have thought that if Diana had really feared for her life, she would have mentioned it to Mohamed Al Fayed at the time of the conversation with him shortly before the crash, when he said she told him she was pregnant and engaged.”
In saying this, Baker appears to disregard the fact that Diana could not possibly have known the crash was about to occur. Why would she particularly mention it at that stage when she was on holiday, happy and in love, and she had already discussed her fears with Mohamed earlier during that summer.
Early on April 1, during his summing up of Diana’s butler Paul Burrell’s evidence, Baker recounted the Queen’s statement to Burrell, made in December 1997: “Be careful, Paul, no one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are powers at work in this country of which we have no knowledge. Do you understand?”
The Coroner then went on to say: “Members of the jury, assuming something like those words were said, you may think it stretches one's imagination to breaking point to conclude that they have the remotest thing to do with a staged collision in a tunnel three and a half months before.”
Burrell had only recently lost his boss in a car crash, the circumstances of which had raised many unanswered questions. Yet Baker is effectively making out the jury are fools if they see any connection between the Paris crash and the Queen’s comment. Given the context that Burrell had met his former boss, the Queen, because of post-crash events, and given that the meeting is within a few months of the crash, it seems reasonably logical that the comment could have had some connection with the crash. 
Later on the same day, April 1, Scott Baker summarises the evidence of David Laurent, who was driving through the tunnel ahead of the Mercedes, immediately before the crash. In his statements that were read to the jury on 11 October 2007, Laurent related that he had to swerve to avoid a slow moving car as he entered the Alma Tunnel. Baker stated that Laurent described this car as a “small light hatchback”.
A closer look at David Laurent’s evidence shows that he gave two descriptions of this car. Firstly he stated: “It was a small light-coloured hatchback car” and secondly and in more detail: “It was an old model, light coloured, white or beige, a Fiat Uno type car.”
It appears that the Coroner has changed “light-coloured, white or beige” to “light” giving a completely different meaning to the description. Furthermore, he has left out “old model” and “Fiat Uno type car”.
Laurent’s evidence is important because it indicates that the Fiat Uno which made contact with the Mercedes immediately before the main crash, was seen moving slowly beforehand. This could corroborate later evidence given by Souad Moufakkir (Nov 6), who also claimed to have seen the Fiat Uno slowing up prior to the crash.
Laurent’s evidence of the Uno being an old model was also corroborated by George Dauzonne (Oct 29), who was a witness of the Fiat Uno as it left the tunnel after the crash.  

Removal of Murder as a Possible Verdict
On March 31, at the start of his summing up, Scott Baker announced to the jury that he was withdrawing murder from the possible verdicts available to them. He stated: “My direction in law to you is that it is not open to you to find that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed in a staged accident.” He went on to explain that “when a coroner leaves a verdict of unlawful killing, in this case on the basis of a staged accident, to a jury, he must identify to the jury the evidence on which they could be sure of such a conclusion. But in this case sufficient evidence simply does not exist.” In what may have then seemed confusing to the jury, Scott Baker continued: “This does not, however, mean that all the suggestions you have heard about the possibility of a staged crash are irrelevant. Because there is some evidence, albeit limited and of doubtful quality, that the crash was staged, it will be necessary for you to consider it in the context of the five verdicts that are open to you.”
Scott Baker appeared to be conceding that there was evidence of a staged crash, but not enough to enable him to allow the jury to be given the opportunity to decide that it was murder.
This inquest has been conducted in the midst of a background of unanswered questions regarding the crash that occurred in circumstances that have led millions of people around the world to believe that it was possible that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were murdered. The jury has faithfully sat there through the 6 months of evidence, believing they had been assigned the task of determining whether this was in fact the case.
It could be argued that at the very last moment the Coroner has virtually pulled the rug out from underneath the inquest. The very purpose of the inquest was to establish whether Diana and Dodi were murdered. The very purpose of having a jury make the decision was in order to remove the possibility of an Establishment cover-up.
What has happened is that at the very end of the inquest, Scott Baker has ruled that the jury should no longer be entrusted with the power to decide on whether a murder took place. In so doing, instead of quelling allegations of a cover-up, Baker has added fuel to them.
Following Vehicles
After this decision by the Coroner, the jury were left with five possible verdicts:

4)   Accidental death
5)   Open verdict
In giving these options the Coroner also removed the possibility of the Mercedes’ contact with the white Fiat Uno – which was travelling ahead of the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel – having an influence on the crash. During the inquest clear forensic evidence was shown that proved the Mercedes was involved in a collision with this car. Because the Fiat Uno was in front of the Mercedes, it cannot be included in the term “following vehicles” in the possible verdict provided to the jury. Scott Baker has failed to explain why he removed the Fiat Uno from suspicion as a possible cause of the crash.  
As discussed earlier the jury chose number 3: “unlawful killing – grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes”.
The reason that the description is “following vehicles” is because these vehicles remain unidentified. It is therefore very surprising that in virtually every media report describing the jury verdict, the words “following vehicles” have been replaced by the word “paparazzi”. There is actually no evidence that indicates that these vehicles were in fact driven by paparazzi.
Eye-witnesses near the Alma Tunnel described several motorbikes closely pursuing or surrounding the Mercedes as it entered the tunnel:

Thus the eye-witness evidence clearly shows that the “following vehicles” mentioned in the jury verdict are in fact several motorbikes that were seen very close to the Mercedes, as it entered the Alma Tunnel.
On 2 October 2007 Scott Baker identified eight paparazzi that were near the Mercedes as it left the Place de la Concorde. They were Benhamou, Guizard, Odekerken, Martinez, Arnal, Rat, Darmon and Chassery. It was also revealed that Benhamou rode a green Honda scooter; Guizard drove a grey Peugeot 205; Odekerken, a Mitsubishi Pajero; Martinez and Arnal were in a black Fiat Uno; Rat and Darmon were on a blue Honda 650 motorcycle and Chassery drove a black Peugeot 205.
This evidence shows that of the paparazzi pursuing the Mercedes, there was actually only one motorbike, a Honda 650 – all the other pursuing paparazzi were either in cars or on a scooter.
On 7 November 2007 Paget Accident Investigator Anthony Read revealed to the inquest that French investigators had conducted tests on the performance of a Honda 650, comparing it with the Mercedes S280. They found that at full acceleration over 1,400 metres the Honda 650 would have been 17% slower than the Mercedes. Darmon, who was driving the Honda, gave evidence to the inquest (on October 29) that he lost sight of the Mercedes after he turned right onto the expressway, after leaving the Place de la Concorde. With Rat his passenger, they were the first of the paparazzi to arrive at the crash scene.
After analysing the evidence, it becomes very clear that it is quite impossible for any of the motorbikes surrounding or closely pursuing the Mercedes as it entered the Alma Tunnel, to have been paparazzi. Instead the motorbikes were unidentified which is why they have been described in the jury’s verdict simply as the “following vehicles”.
It is however clear from early eye-witness evidence that there were camera flashes on the expressway just prior to the Alma Tunnel:

On November 27 Scott Baker himself stated: “I am very interested in trying to find any ... photographs showing the journey of the Mercedes before the collision”.
It is evident that if these photos of Diana and Dodi’s final moments before the crash had been taken by paparazzi, then they would be worth millions of pounds, and somehow they would have surfaced after the crash – whether in newspapers, TV or over the internet. But no such photos have ever been published. 
This raises the question: who took these photos through the untinted windows of the Mercedes S280 on its final trip? Were they men on motorbikes masquerading as paparazzi with the purpose of harming the occupants of the Mercedes, but hoping that blame would later be attributed to the paparazzi?
It is to the shame of both the French and British inquiries that after 5 years of “thorough” investigation none of these motorbikes have been identified. There are also motorbikes – probably the same ones – that were seen fleeing the crash scene, and cars including the white Fiat Uno, that were witnessed fleeing after the crash. The reality is that the police on both sides of the Channel have only ever officially identified one vehicle in this entire case, and that is the crashed Mercedes S280.
The question must be raised: if the riders, passengers and drivers of the vehicles that were clearly witnessed fleeing the crash scene have nothing to hide, why is it that not one of them has come forward to explain their actions? 

Requirement of Jury Unanimity
On March 31, as Scott Baker commenced his lengthy summing up, he instructed the jury: “Whatever your verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be unanimous. There are circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted, but they have not arisen in this case and, if they do, I shall give you a separate direction about it.”
Later on April 2, just before he sent the jury out to deliberate, he reiterated: “With each verdict, whether unlawful killing, accident or open, it must be the verdict of all 11 of you.”
At 3.30 p.m. on April 7, after the jury had been out for 3½ days without reaching a unanimous verdict, the Coroner told them: “The position is this, that the time has now been reached when I am able to accept from you a verdict upon which at least nine of you are agreed”.
There is no correlation between Baker’s earlier requirement that the verdict must be unanimous, and his later statement that some sort of mysterious time limit had been reached and the rules could change to a majority of 9 being acceptable. The Coroner had already stated on March 31 that the “circumstances in which a majority verdict can be accepted [had] not arisen in this case”. On April 7 he made no attempt to explain in what way the circumstances had now changed to enable a majority verdict to be acceptable.
This evidence indicates that in reality, the result in the case of the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed should have been a hung jury.
Did Justice Prevail?
Did the inquest achieve justice for Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul?
The following restraints were placed on the jury:

Was the inquest really thorough?
Were the jury provided with the evidence that really would have enabled them to achieve a unanimous verdict?
Did the Coroner place trust in the ability of the jury to be able to decide on the evidence?
It seems almost unfair that the jury should have been expected to reach a verdict in the above circumstances. It is as though they have achieved a verdict with at least one hand tied behind their backs.
It would also seem likely that the general public’s perception, that the British and French governments have not been up front about the circumstances and events surrounding the Paris crash, would seem justified by the way in which this inquest has been conducted.
To those who say “It’s over 10 years now – its time to move on”: does the fact that a crime or gross injustice that occurred a decade ago mean that it is of less importance and significance than if it happened yesterday?
It is this attitude of public complacency and wanting to “move on” by so many people that has helped enable one of the greatest crimes, and equally one of the greatest cover-ups, of our time to have been perpetrated and successfully carried out.

Copyright © John Morgan