The Verdict of the Diana Inquest, April 2008, and Aftermath

[Artemisia]

That's a shocker if that's true since it's the first I've heard that! If not, how did he manage to escape with his life?

I'm pretty sure it's true; I've been reading Operation Paget two days ago and remember it very clearly.
Edit - Wikipedia entry on Trevor Rees-Jones also contains the information. I'll try to find the exact lines from Operation Paget too.

 

[Baroness of Books]

When he wrote his account of the accident in "The Bodyguard's Story," he said he put the seatbelt on just before the accident and I heard other reports that he did. I'll have to read Operation Paget now to get the story.

 

[NGalitzine]

If Rees Jones did put on his seat belt I would bet it was a last minute decision, because usually bodyguards and protection officers do not use them since it would prevent them from being able to jump into action at a moments notice.

 

[Artemisia]

The link to the full Operation Paget.

Page 421, Chapter Six, clearly states:

The French investigators examined the seat belt systems and determined that none were being worn at the time of the crash apart from the front right seat belt. The suggestion was made that Trevor Rees-Jones may have been in the process of putting on his seat belt at the moment of impact. The report did not indicate that the seat belt systems were examined to ascertain whether they were in a serviceable condition.

Operation Paget’s view is that none of the seat belts were being worn at the time of the impact, including that of Trevor Rees-Jones. From the nature of marks found on his seat belt, it is considered unlikely that he was even in the process of attempting to put it on at all at the time of the crash.

I've attached the relevant passage from the report.

 

[Baroness of Books]

On the one hand, the report says that no seatbelt was worn apart from the front right one. But on the other, it suggests that he may have attempted to put it on. And they reached the conclusion that R-J wasn't even in the process of attempting to put it on. A bit confusing, but in the end, if it wasn't on him when they pulled them out, that's the definitive answer.

Thanks for the report, Artemisia. I had always heard TR-J wore his seatbelt which is why he survived, but this report sounds very conclusive. It's a miracle he's alive today.

 

[Artemisia]

On the one hand, the report says that no seatbelt was worn apart from the front right one. But on the other, it suggests that he may have attempted to put it on. And they reached the conclusion that R-J wasn't even in the process of attempting to put it on. A bit confusing, but in the end, if it wasn't on him when they pulled them out, that's the definitive answer..

The report by the French investigators who conducted the original inquest determined that no one was wearing a seatbelt, but Rees-Jones might have been in the process of trying to put it on. The report by the British investigators, whose investigation is summarised in Operation Paget, agrees that no one was wearing a seatbelt, but adds that judging by the position of the safety belts, it is highly unlikely anyone was even trying to put one immediately before the impact.

It is indeed a miracle Rees-Jones survived, although his injuries were very severe.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I see; thank you again.

 

[Artemisia]

My pleasure, Baroness.
I've been really surprised at that finding too, because I had long assumed that had Diana worn a safety belt on that night, her life might have been saved.

 

[sirhon11234]

It is indeed a miracle Rees-Jones survived, although his injuries were very heavy too.

The lacerations to his face were very serious. One would think that because she was in the back of the passenger seat, Diana's injuries wouldn't have been as severe as those in the front but the force of the crash caused her heart to be misplaced...

 

[EIIR]

Just to flick back to the previous discussion for a moment, wasn't Diana known to have hidden in the boot (trunk) of cars when she really didn't want to be papped?

I've never posted on the conspiracy 'theories' here. The only thing I'll say is, I suppose as a British citizen I should be somewhat flattered that some people believe that the royal family and MI6 are capable of planning something an assassination like this this; not to mention that they're capable of getting the French intelligence services, police, paramedics and medical professionals on board too. Given the UK's shall we say chequered relationship with the French state, that really would have been a monumental achievement.

In short, I don't think that MI6 are that good. I know there's the whole James Bond reputation, but I think the truth is much more mundane - they're good at what they do but not that good. Neither MI5 nor MI6 are above the law, nor do they have a licence to kill either in the UK or abroad.

But, I've just never understood what possible motive anyone in the RF or SIS would have to murder Diana. Yes she was on newspaper front pages, but as Diana would have aged the press interest would have moved gradually to what William and Harry are up to, their romantic entanglements etc. Diana had already done her worst in trying to destroy Charles and the monarchy generally, and she'd failed. The monarchy came out the other side of the War of the Waleses. I just don't see why anyone would have bothered going to all that difficulty to murder the ex-wife of the heir to the throne.

 

[Artemisia]

I have never, not for a second believed in conspiracy theories connected with Diana's death. Having read all relevant opinions and familiarising with facts, I didn't find any basis to believe it foul play. I was just pointing out at an interesting passage from Operation Paget which rebuffs one of the more persistent rumours - that the only person wearing a seatbelt survived.

Although I have to disagree with you on one point; I'm pretty sure MI6 can and is very effective when it needs to be (my grandfathers, both pretty high-profile members of two of former USSR security agencies, always maintained British intelligence services were and still are the best in the world). However, no sane person would arrange a murder attempt under those circumstances because it would require, as you rightly noted, involvement of dozens of people - and that's pretty much impossible. What with all the last minute changes, the large number of potential eye-witnesses and dozens of other things that could go wrong, only really sloppy unprofessionals could have arranged an "accident" like that.

 

[sirhon11234]

I guess to some people some of the events leading up to and after the crash were mysterious and the explanations weren't satisfying.

The conspiracy theories that I've heard which be came food for thought was that Dodi was the intended target because he was involved in some sinister business. And Diana was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But there isn't concrete evidence to back that claim.

 

[Artemisia]

I guess to some people some of the events leading up to and after the crash were mysterious and the explanations weren't satisfying.

The conspiracy theories that I've heard which be came food for thought was that Dodi was the intended target because he was involved in some sinister business. And Diana was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But there isn't concrete evidence to back that claim.

I've read of those theories as well. But the one reason why personally I eventually dismissed any foul play, is that it would have been virtually impossible for anyone to foresee all (or any) of the last-minute changes Dodi and Diana made on a whim.

Arranging anyone's assassination isn't really hard if you have the resources and a lot of patience; there were literally hundreds of more convenient opportunities to murder either Dodi, or Diana; why arrange it under circumstances that could potentially mean a lot of eyewitnesses and evidence?

 

[Baroness of Books]

My post #268 expresses how I feel about conspiracy theories: this was an unfortunate sequence of events involving aggressive paparazzi, a drunk driver and occupants not wearing their seatbelts during a high-speed chase. A lot of people were in a state of disbelief and couldn't accept that someone as young, famous and vibrant as Diana could have her life ended in such a mundane, ordinary manner. And so the conspiracy theories abound.

 

[NGalitzine]

The simplest explanation is usually the best for most things, in thsi case drunk drive, high speed, loss of control ends in fatal car crash.

 

[anbrida]

The simplest explanation is usually the best for most things, in thsi case drunk drive, high speed, loss of control ends in fatal car crash.

At the moment of the impact, that was all the truth. But people would still ask why the driver would be drunk, why the passengers didn't wear seat-belts, and why the bodyguard had not slowed down the driver when he drove at such a high speed.

I haven't taken enough time to look through the verdict. I wonder whether it had addressed all these questions. Especially on the issue of why the driver was drunk that night. I remembered they detected both depression drug and alcohol in Paul's blood. I would think Paul must have been under a big pressure, so he used these stuffs to relax himself? Just a piece of my thought.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Read the Operation Paget report.

 

[anbrida]

Read the Operation Paget report.

I wonder how many members of this forum have actually finished reading that report, especially the part regarding whether the driver was drunk. I spent a whole night on the report, just found it mission impossible to finish . But per what I have read, the general idea in a nutshell is
(1) The blood test of the driver conducted by the french authority had a lot of misdeeds, such as blood samples were collected from a wrong position which might lead to contamination of the sample; incorrect information on labels; wrong procedure to do the test, and so on.
(2) Some results of the blood tests was very ridiculous. The alcohol level indicated by those tests would have killed a person within 3 seconds.
(3)Investigators could not find any witnesses who had a feeling that the driver was drunk that night.
(4)Investigators could not find any witnesses who could prove the driver had drunk any alcohol. There were witnesses who saw the driver drink some juice, water and energy drink that night, but not alcohol.
(5)Investigators could not identify the time frame when the driver get himself drunk that night.

According to what I have read, I got an impression that the investigators were not sure whether the driver was drunk or not.

 

[Kataryn]

I wonder how many members of this forum have actually finished reading that report, especially the part regarding whether the driver was drunk. I spent a whole night on the report, just found it mission impossible to finish . But per what I have read, the general idea in a nutshell is
(1) The blood test of the driver conducted by the french authority had a lot of misdeeds.
(2) Some results of the blood tests was very ridiculous. The alcohol level indicated by those tests would have killed a person within 3 seconds.
(3)Investigators could not find any witnesses who could prove the driver was drunk.
(4)Investigators could not find any witnesses who could prove the driver had drunken a large amount of alcohol.
(5)Investigators could not identify the time frame when the driver get drunk that night.

According to what I have read, I got an impression that the investigators were not sure whether the driver was drunk or not.

We had cases here in Germany where seasoned drinkers could inbibe in amounts of alcohol that would kill normal people. And still appear to be "sober". They even could drive without problems. Till the moment something out of the ordinary happened. Then they couldn't react like a sober person. Sad, but that's how it is.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Very true.

The human body can get used to an intake of alcohol and not feel the effects obviously until such a time as they have to re-act.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Actually, I read the whole thing. It was quite informative. "Witnesses" can't prove someone is drunk, particularly if the drunk person is well-accustomed to alcohol overuse. Henri-Paul wasn't a chauffeur; he was in security. For a man who was not a licensed chauffeur to drive very quickly in a powerful car, down an incline, and round a bend, while being distracted by pursuing photographers--well, that's a recipe for an accident, as I can see it. That's a dangerous situation even if the driver is sober.

I wonder how many members of this forum have actually finished reading that report, especially the part regarding whether the driver was drunk.

 

[anbrida]

The report did mention that some friends of Paul said he was not a good driver. It happens quite often that speeding itself can lead to a car accident, especially AT NIGHT. I am not trying to put up a conspiracy, just want to clarify something. It is quite reckless to put a finger on Henry Paul being drunk that night, with all those evidences at hands.

 

[NGalitzine]

Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the best. Driver who had been drinking, driving at high speed, passengers without seat belts on, driver loses control, occupants of car die.

 

[Artemisia]

(1) The blood test of the driver conducted by the french authority had a lot of misdeeds.
(2) Some results of the blood tests was very ridiculous. The alcohol level indicated by those tests would have killed a person within 3 seconds.
(3)Investigators could not find any witnesses who could prove the driver was drunk.
(4)Investigators could not find any witnesses who could prove the driver had drunken a large amount of alcohol.
(5)Investigators could not identify the time frame when the driver get drunk that night.

Some statements from Operation Paget (which I have read from the beginning to end) concerning Henri Paul's alcohol consumption.

...even if Henri Paul had drunk alcohol and had been asked to drive for Dodi Al Fayed, he could not have refused. Furthermore, Dodi Al Fayed would not have known that Henri Paul had been drinking, because Henri Paul did not display signs of intoxication even when he had consumed more alcohol than usual. It would have been a matter of pride for Henri Paul, and to refuse Dodi Al Fayed, would amount to refusing to drive for Mr Mohamed Al Fayed.’

...he asked me to give him a prescription for Prozac antidepressant and for Noctamide, a medication prescribed by a Parisian doctor... ‘I recommended that he add two therapeutic drugs to his treatment: Aotal, which causes a dislike of alcohol, the efficacy of which is relative, but I felt that this prescription would reassure Henry. I probably did this because he was a friend of mine and I would not have used this substance in that context with one of my regular patients; and Tiapridal, which is a neuroleptic usually with alcoholic connotations.

Dr Dominique Mélo had prescribed Aotal to Henri Paul. It was not found in the analysis of samples taken from Henri Paul’s body at the autopsy.

The evidence of Didier Gamblin, François Tendil and Jean-François Musa indicates that Henri Paul considered his work finished for the day when he left the Ritz Hotel at around 7pm on Saturday 30 August 1997.

After finishing his work for the day, Henri Paul left the Ritz Hotel just after 7pm. François Tendil, the night duty security officer, called Henri Paul on his mobile telephone at around 10pm to tell him that the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed had unexpectedly returned to the hotel.

Described talking to Henri Paul outside the Bar de Bourgogne at around 7.30pm on Saturday night. The bar was very close to Henri Paul’s home address.

‘Henri Paul ordered a drink, which he drank. [at approximately 22:00 - my addition] I asked what he had and he said ‘ananas’, which I understand to mean ‘pineapple’. I thought it was pineapple cordial. That was what it looked like, one of the cordial’s they have in France. The barman brought it with a carafe of water and Henri Paul poured water into it. He might have had some ice in it too but I cannot recall for sure.

He was a casual barman in the ‘Bar Vendôme’ and was on duty on Saturday 30 August 1997. He last saw Henri Paul at about 11pm that night. He recalled seeing him in the ‘Bar Vendôme’ at a table with the bodyguards. Sébastien Trote took Henri Paul’s first order and served him his first glass of Ricard.

He was the barman/headwaiter who served Henri Paul’s second glass of Ricard. He
recalled Henri Paul sitting at the table with the bodyguards. On clearing their table, Philippe Doucin recalled that amongst the items he removed was a ‘nearly empty glass of Ricard from in front of M Paul.’ When Philippe Doucin cleared the table, Henri Paul ordered another Ricard. Philippe Doucin served him a 5cl measure, together with an accompanying jug of water.

While there are multiply (and sometimes contradicting) accounts, I don't think there can be any doubt Henry Paul did consume alcohol on the night. As some of his friends noted, he would not appear to be drunk even if he did drink more than usual.

 

[EIIR]

I agree entirely, Mermaid. It's not really necessary to prove whether Henri Paul was drunk or not, in my view at least. He was driving a very powerful car which was new to him, on a challenging stretch of road while pursued by photographers. He was evidently driving too fast to avoid the terrible accident.

I can speak from personal experience here. I managed to lose control of my little 1.2 litre car while coming up to a nasty bend on a country road. The loss of control caused the car to veer wildly off the road, down a ditch and flip over a few times before coming to rest on its roof. I was then, and still am, entirely teetotal. I had had no alcohol, my car was much less powerful than the Mercedes Paul was driving, and I was not being pursued by anybody; and yet I still managed to have a very nasty crash which I'm sure would've killed me had I not been wearing my seatbelt.

Paul could've been stone cold sober like me and still have caused an awful smash.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I had a similar accident, because I missed seeing a 25 km/h sign on an unfamiliar stretch of road. We left the road and flipped over a couple of times, narrowly missing a large tree stump. Fortunately, we were okay; and interestingly enough, the first person to come along was a former paramedic. The most sober, most careful driver can have an accident. I think what everything boils down to with the Paris accident is that there were too many "cowboys" and not enough "sheriffs." What was needed were professional protection officers, which Diana didn't have because she dismissed them.

I can speak from personal experience here. I managed to lose control of my little 1.2 litre car while coming up to a nasty bend on a country road.

Paul could've been stone cold sober like me and still have caused an awful smash.