Last Hours, Death, Transfer from France, Funeral and Interment


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Diana's reaction to the death of Versace is interesting. I'm not surprised that she was sad. I am surprised by her focus on herself. Her equating Versace's possible killing with danger to her own self, to me, indicates that Diana was quite insular. It's a very inward way of looking at another person's death, to then feel sorry for oneself. To me it indicates that Diana was concerned for herself. That doesn't mean that she was in actual danger but just that she was not in a state of mind to be capable of removing herself from a situation.

I think Diana had a personality disorder of some type or other. That is no crime and it doesn't warrant less respect of her. Regardless, Diana got stuck in and did meaningful public work. I think it explains some of the more vulnerable aspects of her personality though and the somewhat immature way that she courted the press.
As far as whether Diana had power. She had the ability to move the masses due to her popularity - that is a type of power. Mostly, Diana used her 'power' for good works and that remains her real legacy.

People with real power sometimes move and shake the World but are not remembered with such affection because their marks left behind are less kind.
Our greatest leaders are both powerful and mindful of the people's best interests.

If Diana had lived longer I don't think that she would have used any 'popularity power' that she did have to influence who the next King of England would have been.
She seemed over her dramatic media performances. Diana was enjoying her life and had no reason to revisit a time where her thoughts were delusional or overshadowed by the sadness of the collapse of her marriage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, valid point. Sophie Rhys-Jones had a guard after Jill Dando was murdered. BBC News | UK | Sophie 'under guard' after murder I also remember that there were worries among some around the Royal Wedding in 1981 because of John Lennon's assassination and the attempted assassinations of the Pope and President Reagan. One reporter asked whether Lady Diana's bodice was likely to be bullet-proof, if I remember correctly.


Any sane celebrity would reconsider his or her security after a high profile murder of another celebrity. The murder of Rebecca Schaffer by a deranged stalker helped fuel the explosion of companies that provide security for celebrities in California.
 
Diana's reaction to the death of Versace is interesting. I'm not surprised that she was sad. I am surprised by her focus on herself. Her equating Versace's possible killing with danger to her own self, to me, indicates that Diana was quite insular. It's a very inward way of looking at another person's death, to then feel sorry for oneself. To me it indicates that Diana was concerned for herself. That doesn't mean that she was in actual danger but just that she was not in a state of mind to be capable of removing herself from a situation.

I think she had any right to be concerned for herself, right? Because she did die in less than 2 months. Even though we've already seen from the hearing of the court that, Diana had received life-threatening message from some government figure due to her anti-landmine campaign, we still could not allow her to show some concerning for her own life? If she showed any of this kind of emotion, she must be mad???!!! I have to say, this is really mean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So speculate on how many marriages she would have by now (I think four is a good number) is stupid, but it's okay to speculate that she was killed (right, let's ignore the drunk driver and the fact she was not wearing the seat belt)?

The problem is, the driver is not confirmed to be really drunk. "He was drunk" was only a story the authority gave to the public. If you really follow the case, you would know people already find out a lot of suspicious, really suspicious things about the alleged blood example of Henri Paul.

One more thing, the "accident" happened is not because she was not wearing a seatbelt. Even she had woren the seatbelt, an "accident" could still happen. Seatbelt is not the cause of the "accident". And even she wore the seatbelt, she could still be dead, or serious hurt.
 
Last edited:
The problem is, the driver is not confirmed to be really drunk. "He was drunk" was only a story the authority gave to the public. If you really follow the case, you would know people already find out a lot of suspicious, really suspicious things about the alleged blood example of Henri Paul.

One more thing, the "accident" happened is not because she was not wearing a seatbelt. Even she had woren the seatbelt, an "accident" could still happen. Seatbelt is not the cause of the "accident". And even she wore the seatbelt, she could still be dead, or serious hurt.

I prefer to stick with what the authorities said. I see no point in believing in what a bunch conspiracy theorists from Internet are saying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I prefer to stick with what the authorities said. I see no point in believing in what a bunch conspiracy theorists from Internet are saying.

The point is, if you like so much to speculate about "Diana's murder", you have no right to say we can't speculate on how many marriages she'd have had by now.

I would not try to convince anybody just by my own saying. Sure I will show you evidences later, but most important, it needs a unbiased mind to see though the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would not try to convince anybody just by my own saying. Sure I will show you evidences later, but most important, it needs a unbiased mind to see though the truth.

Okay, I'd love to see an internet discussion board member from China having evidence that Diana was murdered. Evidence not a single credible source or authority has find in almost twenty years.

Oh, and websites made by Diana worshippers who claim she was killed by Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Camilla or whatever doesn't count as evidence.
 
The blood sample of Henri Paul

First, of course these are not found out by me. But we are in the era of internet, as long as one care, this kind of information is not hard to find. I just want to give a summary what I knew

Unanswered Question about Henri Paul's blood sample

(1) It is claimed by French Authority that Mr Paul had a blood alcohol level of 1.74 grams per litre, which was the equivalent of twice the British drink-drive limit and three times the French. However, French can only find out that Mr Paul had drank two Ricard liqueurs. This number of drinks would not have been enough to trigger such an alcohol reading. It needs 8 of them to do so.

(2) The french blood test also showed that 20% of carbon monoxide in his blood. In this case Mr Paul wouldn't have been able to stand with that level in his blood. However, cctv footage from Ritz shows that Mr Paul was as sober as any other sober person.

(3) (this is the most suspicious part). Since 1997, Mr Paul's parents have been using legal action to request the French authority to give them their son's blood example to do a DNA test. But French authority always reject without given any explanation till now.

My conclusion. I think French authority has already did such a DNA test itself. It is not hard, it is not hard to get DNA sample from Mr Paul's body. If the result did show it was the right blood example, why not give them to Paul's parents, so that all rumors related to the blood could be disputed, right? I can't s see any reason why they won't do that. So the fact that they didn't do so, it means very likely the blood is NOT Mr Paul's.

Now, it can only be confirmed that Henri Paul had only drank two Ricard that night. If 8 Ricard is 3 times of driving-limit, then 2 is less than driving-limit. Henri Paul was a very experienced security man whose job included driving VIP of the hotel. I think as professional as he was, it was his job to know very well how much alcohol he could drink to be under the driving-limit.

http://www.whale.to/b/family_of_diana_crash_driver.html
 
Last edited:
:previous: Oh good grief. We zoomed right through crazyland and took a the emergency off ramp straight into Fantasy Land! :ermm:
 
:previous: Oh good grief. We zoomed right through crazyland and took a the emergency off ramp straight into Fantasy Land! :ermm:

... made a upside down turn at the junction of Twiddlededum and Twiddlededumber where our check bounced at the Reality Bank.

No matter what the circumstances of an event, there will always be alternate theories and supplications and things that don't quite fit. What it boils down to though is that nothing said or done after the fact can change its outcome.

Did Diana fear for her life? Was she actually threatened by someone? Are the tapes even the real thing and are in existence somewhere? I don't think we'll ever have answers to these questions as the person that knows the answers best is no long among us.
 
Call me when the shuttle lands.....

All this because the driver was seen to have had only two drinks. But perhaps he was a high functioning alcoholic? He might have been already sloshed when he had his two "top up" liqueurs. Alcoholics can be pretty good at covering their tracks, e.g drinking in private and cleverly getting rid of the empties. Seems a more likely explanation than the old DNA switcheroo so favoured by conspiracy theorists.
 
As for who, how, why etc of Diana's death - to bring this thread back to the topic:

She died because:


she was in the car with a drunk driver
she didn't wear her seatbelt
she was in a car being driven by an inexperienced driver in those situations
she had dismissed professional security in favour of the 'yes' men employed by Al Fayed
she made bad decisions that night
they didn't know what they were doing and kept changing their minds


Was she murdered? No - too difficult to guarantee that a specific person would die in a car accident as evidenced by the fact that one person survived that accident


Would she have survived if she had arrived at the hospital any faster? No - those with the skills to help her at any hospital weren't on duty and had to be brought in anyway to arriving faster wouldn't have had the specialists there - and she would have been dead anyway as they had to stop to revive her as she kept arresting in the ambulance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for who, how, why etc of Diana's death - to bring this thread back to the topic:

She died because:


she was in the car with a drunk driver
she didn't wear her seatbelt
she was in a car being driven by an inexperienced driver in those situations
she had dismissed professional security in favour of the 'yes' men employed by Al Fayed
she made bad decisions that night
they didn't know what they were doing and kept changing their minds


Was she murdered? No - too difficult to guarantee that a specific person would die in a car accident as evidenced by the fact that one person survived that accident


Would she have survived if she had arrived at the hospital any faster? No - those with the skills to help her at any hospital weren't on duty and had to be brought in anyway to arriving faster wouldn't have had the specialists there - and she would have been dead anyway as they had to stop to revive her as she kept arresting in the ambulance

Why we can be so sure the driver was drunk. Because the authority told us so. No one will more desperate and eager to find any proof that Henri Paul had drank more than 2 Ricards that night. They had sent at least 20 detectives to find evidences, but no, all they could find was only 2 Ricards, and that doesn't match the reading. In this case people would wonder whether the blood example was not Mr Paul's, right? Why not do a DNA test to verify. But French authority's attitude is, "no, we can not do any DNA test, the blood is right, because I say so."

The french tried another way to prove Mr Paul was alcoholic. They searched Mr Paul's flat for alcohol bottles. They did it two times. The first time, with the presence of Mr Paul's parents, they couldn't find a lot, only several cans of beer. Then ten days later, they did another search of the same flat. This time without the presence of Mr Paul's parents, suddenly they found alcohol bottles everywhere. Job Done!!! Mr Paul was an alcoholic.

How about why they could only find 2 Ricards other than at least 8 to match the reading. Here is how the authority tried to solve the puzzle. In the hearing, they found an "expert", and ask him, "is it possible that Mr Paul had drank another 6 Ricards at a earlier time?" The expert said "yes". Then job done. Although there is no substantial evidences at all, but we could not deny the possibility that he had drank at least 8 Ricards, so the test result could not be denied. So Mr Paul was drunk !!!
 
Why we can be so sure the driver was drunk. Because the authority told us so. No one will more desperate and eager to find any proof that Henri Paul had drank more than 2 Ricards that night. They had sent at least 20 detectives to find evidences, but no, all they could find was only 2 Ricards, and that doesn't match the reading. In this case people would wonder whether the blood example was not Mr Paul's, right? Why not do a DNA test to verify. But French authority's attitude is, "no, we can not do any DNA test, the blood is right, because I say so."

The french tried another way to prove Mr Paul was alcoholic. They searched Mr Paul's flat for alcohol bottles. They did it two times. The first time, with the presence of Mr Paul's parents, they couldn't find a lot, only several cans of beer. Then ten days later, they did another search of the same flat. This time without the presence of Mr Paul's parents, suddenly they found alcohol bottles everywhere. Job Done!!! Mr Paul was an alcoholic.

How about why they could only find 2 Ricards other than at least 8 to match the reading. Here is how the authority tried to solve the puzzle. In the hearing, they found an "expert", and ask him, "is it possible that Mr Paul had drank another 6 Ricards at a earlier time?" The expert said "yes". Then job done. Although there is no substantial evidences at all, but we could not deny the possibility that he had drank at least 8 Ricards, so the test result could not be denied. So Mr Paul was drunk !!!

I guess it is always possible to find a conspiracy theory in most things.
 
What would be the point of trying to prove that Henri Paul was drunk if he wasn't? It's not as if Diana and Dodi had made long term plans and Paul was their designated driver during their time in Paris, in which case he could have been 'got at' by security services or whoever.

Everything in those last hours was so terribly random. Diana and Dodi could have spent their entire evening at the Ritz, eaten supper there and settled down for the evening and overnight in their private suite away from paparazzi, rubber-necking tourists and everyone else. It was a last minute decision of Dodi's that took them both out that night, and that no-one could predict.
 
Of course all of this has been discussed and dissected here and elsewhere so nothing new to discuss now.
 
What would be the point of trying to prove that Henri Paul was drunk if he wasn't? It's not as if Diana and Dodi had made long term plans and Paul was their designated driver during their time in Paris, in which case he could have been 'got at' by security services or whoever.

Everything in those last hours was so terribly random. Diana and Dodi could have spent their entire evening at the Ritz, eaten supper there and settled down for the evening and overnight in their private suite away from paparazzi, rubber-necking tourists and everyone else. It was a last minute decision of Dodi's that took them both out that night, and that no-one could predict.

According to Dodi's father. Dodi had promised him in their last telephone call, he and Diana would stay in the Hotel. But someone had persuaded them to go out at last minute. And Paul's behavior was very weird too. The cctv footage had shown him waved to two paparazzi waiting outside when they were set to leave the hotel. One more thing, people still don't understand why Paul would have driven the car to the tunnel, because their final destination was Dodi's apartment, and the tunnel was not on the route at all. There is a suspicion that Paul was a French agent. But of course it was impossible for him to commit a suicide attack. But it was possible someone had ordered him to bring the couple out and take a route through the tunnel, WITHOUT telling him the reason.
 
Last edited:
:holly:Cant we just let Diana be .....she's DEAD, live for her legacy, that's what she would want, she deserves to be left in peace and remember for the positives not the negatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
She is an historical figure whose life AND death will be discussed and debated for centuries to come.
 
My first post in this thread. I am staggered that anyone would be naive enough to accept the Drunk driver version. Then you are saying that one of the most high profile Hotels in the world where Royals from every where often stay And the seriously rich - would employ a man as head of security who was dumb enough to drink too much on a weekend when he knew his employers son was in town with the high profile Princess. He knew the paparazzi would give chase. So why drive so fast. Other things were driving the motive that night that we are not aware of. Why did a high profile Lord/judge quit overseeing the coroners court case on this matter, because certain evidence was not allowed to be heard. Why? There are a great many unanswered questions which is why people go to this thread I guess. Henri Paul deserves better than to be labelled a drunk. Especially when it took authorities 3 goes to come up with drunk version.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that he had finished for the night and then was called back to drive the car - a car he wasn't experienced in driving in that manner as it wasn't his job.


A simply case of wrong decisions being made is far more plausible than the convoluted conspiracy theory based on the grief on a man who:


a. employed the staff
b. owned the hotels they were at and were going to
c. owned the car driven


Rather than face the culpability of his own shortcomings and those of the decisions made that night he made outlandish claims that some people have swallowed rather than be actually consider the most likely scenario as the real one - a drunk driver drove at speed in a car he wasn't used to driving and had an accident - something that happens every night in every city in the world with no conspiracy behind it but because Diana died it has to be because of a conspiracy rather than simply a drunk driver driving too fast and losing control of his car with three people dead.
 
:holly:Cant we just let Diana be .....she's DEAD, live for her legacy, that's what she would want, she deserves to be left in peace and remember for the positives not the negatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why discussing her death is considered as not respectful to her legacy. If there are actually something sinister in her accident, don't you think she deserves some justice in this case. I think I am not the only one who was not sure the true nature of her death. I think her sons had the same mind, at least in 2007. In the interview they gave to NBC,

Prince William: Yeah. I mean, again just for my personal opinion when you knew somebody or someone that important to you, you always think about you know. I mean, straight after it happened we were always thinking about it. Not a day goes by when I don't think about it once in the day. And so for us it’s been very slow and it's a lot, it has been a long time.

Prince Harry: You know when people think about it they think about her death. They think about you know how wrong it was. They think whatever happened. I don't know, for me personally what happened you know that night, whatever happened in that tunnel -- no one will ever know. And I'm sure people will always think about it the whole time.
Matt Lauer: Have you stopped wondering?
Prince Harry: I'll never stop wondering about that.
A royal conversation with William and Harry - TODAY.com

I mean if they were certain that it was just an accident, they would not "think about it every day", and "never stop wondering about that", right? I think there must something not right to them. And no one will accuse them not respectful, isn't it.
 
Don't forget that he had finished for the night and then was called back to drive the car - a car he wasn't experienced in driving in that manner as it wasn't his job.

Don't forget that the french police had every detail of Henri Paul's movement during his last hours, which of course include the hours when he was off duty. For these hours, they could only confirmed that he had only two Ricards. So they assume that he must have more alcohol earlier, which mean during the time he was still on duty. If they have to assume that, then it is equivalent to claim, Henri Paul, who was the head of security of Ritz Hotel, while he was on duty to receive one of the most famous woman in the world, he got himself drunk.
 
Three people died in a tragic horrible car accident. The trouble with this accident is that at the time the authorities kept changing the information as to how and why it happened. At first they said No - Henri Paul wasn't drunk. Then they came up with another story about Henri Paul before deciding to go with Over the limit alcohol in the blood version. People these days know full well you cannot believe everything the authorities tell you just because they say so. Too many lies have been told and a perfect cover up is to fuel all the conspiracy theories. I think most of us just find the official findings do not Ring true, - for some reason. Therefore people want to debate the issue, to find some plausible explanation that led to the crash.
 
I still would like to know, who told Henri Paul to drive like a bat out of hell through the streets of Paris? None of that made any sense at all.
 
Why discussing her death is considered as not respectful to her legacy. If there are actually something sinister in her accident, don't you think she deserves some justice in this case. I think I am not the only one who was not sure the true nature of her death. I think her sons had the same mind, at least in 2007. In the interview they gave to NBC,

A royal conversation with William and Harry - TODAY.com

I mean if they were certain that it was just an accident, they would not "think about it every day", and "never stop wondering about that", right? I think there must something not right to them. And no one will accuse them not respectful, isn't it.
Wrong! If my mother had been killed in such a way I would never stop wondering "what if" because the sheer banality of the way she died would haunt me.

A drunk driver, no seatbelts and excess speed lends an almost inevitable conclusion. So yes I am sure they would wonder why their beloved Mother got into a car and didn't put her seat belt on, even when things got hairy trying to lose the paparazzi.

As to comments about the Head of Security not getting drunk, well please name me one, or even two international hotels where the Head of Security stays awake and sober 24/7. He was not a 'trained' driver nor even a trained chauffeur. He was also not on duty.

Diana was such a larger than life personality. That such a life could be snuffed out in such a pedestrian manner is a life lesson to us all. Drink + speed + no seatbelts = death no matter who you are, how famous, how loved, how venerated.

Conspiracy theorists cannot accept such a conclusion for all the investigations, inquests, etc. Unless or until "they" say she was assassinated, they will argue, slander and libel anyone involved in investigating the case, strong in their belief that the truth is out there, in true X Files tradition.
 
About the seatbelt, I found this in the "Operation Paget Report", page 421

Analysis of the wreckage of the car after its repatriation to England in 2005 by a Forensic Accident Investigator from the Transport Research Laboratory of thirty-five years experience on behalf of Operation Paget found that all the seatbelts were in good working order with the exception of the right rear one which was for the seat Diana occupied. Follow up enquiries with French investigators found that they had declared all the seatbelts operational at an examination in October 1998, suggesting the damage to this seatbelt took place after the accident.

This means, the french declared in 1998 all seatbelts were functional. Then in 2005 British accident investigator found that all seatbelts were functional except for the one for the seat Diana occupied. Then the french said "Oh it must be damaged after the accident. "

Hmmmm. Surprise!!!
 
Last edited:
After 91 days of hearing, and evidence from 240 witnesses, the jury in the coronial inquest gave its verdict on 7 April 2008. They found, according to the criminal standard, i.e. 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than the civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities', a verdict of unlawful killing due to the grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi and Paul.

By a majority of 9:2, the jury found that "The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol." All members agreed that "the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else."

Details of the inquest can be found here: [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Hearing transcripts: 7 April 2008 Verdict of the jury

The jury is the sole arbiter of fact in our system of justice.

Based upon what I know of this matter, and many years' experience as a solicitor practising in the field of motor vehicle personal injury law, I have no trouble believing that the jury was right. Diana and Dodi died in the sort of ordinary motor car accident that tragically kills thousands of people every year.
 
Last edited:
Now it seems besides the driver's blood, the seatbelt is also suspicious.

First French declared in 1998 all seatbelts were operational, but British in 2005 found out it was not the case, instead Diana's seatbelt had problem. So it means one of them may have told lie. Then without explaining why the two results were conflicted, without doing any further mechanical analysis, the French went on suggest that "even it was not operational, it must be damaged after the accident, not before the accident". I wonder what the hell how they could be so sure it was not damaged before the accident.

Not to say that every friends in the hearing have testified Diana was a faithful seatbelt user. I think the true reason why she didn't wear the seatbelt was still unknown to the public.

This case really strike me. It seems Diana had been always using the seatbelt, the only time she didn't, an accident happened. I am a math major, I know the chance that this kind of thing would happen is very very slim. The thing just doesn't sound natural to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom