DNA Evidence Confirms Diana Accident
New DNA evidence has confirmed that Henri Paul, the driver of the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales died, was indeed drunk at the wheel.
The BBC has obtained conclusive proof that the blood sample of Henri Paul was not switched for someone else’s before tests were performed on it. The original tested sample has been compared with Paul’s parents’ DNA, confirming the match.
Conspiracy theorists have been claiming for years that the sample was not that of Henri Paul, or had been contaminated in some way. These notions have now been totally debunked, as have the other wild theories doing the rounds.
Lord Stevens’s report on his meticulous three-year, re-examination of the evidence is expected to be published on Thursday.
The conclusions are widely expected to pronounce that the events of August 31, 1997 were caused by a driving accident, exacerbated by an excess of alcohol.
It actually doesnt confirm anything.Its what the Bbc chose as a title but in the documentary itself,the Questions arent answered,instead its very interesting that many British citizens believe it wasnt an accident and many Royal reportersand writers who have made reasearch on the issue still doubt about the accident.His parents dont accept the findings either.By the way,Darling Rosa Moncton reappeares after her dissapearence,the press was looking for her after the Fountain fiasco for months,she wouldnt come out and say why it went so bad and wrong,and completely dissapointing,she was a major part of it.You can see her stating ,the great friend of Diana,that Diana couldnt have been pregnant cause she had period.Someone should inform this woman that its not rare to have period in the begining of a pregnacy,and many women continue to have even until the last days of their pregnacy.She should be ashamed,after Diana did so much for her,to have gone out in every paper there is and every channel,to support Camilla and Charles,and suck them up like the rest of the celeb suckers.She should be ashamed.Diana was betrayed by so many people.Iam so glad Lucia was never fond of this woman and she was right.What a complete loser.Funie i happened to have her comments after the first days of Dianas death,stating of how happy Diana was with Dodi,how much in love,and what a great guy he was Diana found someone who wasnt embarassed to be seen with her.Then she changed her tune,and as the Palace wanted,she was stating in the press that it wasnt something serious,just a summer fling and Diana was sleeping with Dodi to make the doctor jealous.Many people who bash Diana think that some of us who were there dont remember.Just because we dont say it doesnt mean we have forgotten how this realy happened.
By Shake on December 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
They should really leave this alone. Let her rest in peace.
By Margaret on December 10th, 2006 at 8:50 am
How sad that if this is the truth responsibility for their deaths rests solely on the doorstep of Mr. Al Fayed. The tradgedy here is as head of security for the Ritz and some chauffering Henri Paul should have been routinely tested for substance abuse as is the case here in the U.S.A. for certain jobs. I agree with Margaret leave it alone and let her rest in peace.
By Trudie on December 10th, 2006 at 10:24 am
There has to be an official British inquest by the Royal coroner. Because of the speculation, the last one asked Lord Stevens to undertake a full British police inquiry. That seems to have come to exactly the same conclusion as the French one. So now the British Inquest can go ahead.
Then, finally, the poor girl can rest in peace.
By John on December 10th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Yeah right.She will never rest in peace if justice is not done.How odd that she wrote down her husband was planning to kill her,and the British are sending the Inquiry to Her husband,first to read.Yeah let her rest in peace,so Charles and his chums can bash her and rewrite history.
By Shake on December 10th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Funie how the Brits will admit that Dianas phones were bugged(as she was saying,and Charles friends were calling her mad)by the Us but not by the British hahahaha.Are they serious?WHo believes that the Us had her bugged but not the British.And she wrote Charles will murder her,funie how everything she said is coming true,Charles and Cams mariage,her sons being turned against her,she was bugged,but hey it was an accident.I believe she was murdered,just and because she WROTE IT DOWN.EVERYTHING ELSE SHE SAID CAME TRUE.WHat a ridiculus inquiry,hahahaha.I do wonder if Camilla will be seating next to Charles reading about Dianas period or how the confirmed she wasnt pregnant and all that details.People who bash backstabbed and never respected her in her life,will read her inquiry first,to disrespect her for just another time.Welldone.Poor boys are still litle,they cant read,Daddy must explain it to them.By the way WHat was Charles relation to Diana when she died?Ex-husband having parties for the mistress.Disgusting.
By shake on December 11th, 2006 at 6:11 am
Or as a friend just said to me,the Us(the buggs) are the bad guys,along with the French(Henri Paul)while poor old British are coming out quite clean and nice from this inquiry.Hehhehe.
By shake on December 11th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Shake is right something does not quite sound right. I do not buy into conspiracy theories but there are plausible questions that need answering such as why would the CIA bug Diana when she was not even in the US and British intelligence claim to not havebeen informed? Charles camp especially that big mouth Fatty Soames always labeled her paranoid and mentally unstable as a government minister I am sure Charles being given the report would be his doing. Charles has many friends in high places and in a fit of pique he like many other spouses may wish that partner would die not that he would do it but there are many deranged people eager to please who would be more than happy to carry out a fantasy.
By Trudie on December 11th, 2006 at 11:59 am
The BBC documentary last night went over all the conspiracy points and demolished them all. The French were meticulous in their investigation and Lord Stevens checked every avenue, from the white Fiat Uno to the claims that Henri Paul was a secret agent. In fact, like any head of security at an international hotel, he had links to the French police to inform them of people’s movements. He wasn’t involved in MI6 at all.
By John on December 11th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Yeah we believed it.The BBC has failed to answer about the car ,white Fiat Uno.They actually confirmed the car wasnt going over 70 to 90kms WHERE IS THE 130KMS it was reported in the first place?I run with my car,in a road of 40 kms even i go at 80kms.
There was no answer for why they didnt take her to the closest hospital
About the pregnacy they only based that she wasnt in Rosas words cause she had a period.
I havent seen any clear answer about Henris Paul drug tests,ther just showed some friends of his who said he could walk and talk when he was drinking.
Sorry but they have failed to answer anything.Trudie i cant blame charles anymore,WIlliam and Harry are grown ups,they chose to allow themselfs to be used in the spin machine againt their owns mother reputation and legacy.
By shake on December 11th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Did the BBC documentary address why Princess Diana was left to die in the wrecked car instead of being taken to the nearest hospital where she could have been saved in an ICU unit? That single fact is the reason many Americans, myself among them, are certain she was murdered.
By Gigi on December 11th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
It did Gigi. The French doctor in charge said she suffered heart failure as they lifted her out of the car and had to stabilize her before they could move. Also there was a major tear in a coronary artery that had to be corrected too.
Once that was done they had to move very slowly because the slightest jerk could stop the heart again. They took her at walking pace to a specialist heart hospital, rather than nearer ones because they knew she would stand a better chance. That they got her there still alive is testimony to the skills of the French paramedics.
By John on December 11th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Thank you, John. I appreciate hearing that. It sounds as if the BBC documentary was very thorough. This is one of those nightmares that never seems to end. I think it is very important to have the full investigation completed carefully, and to make the results known.
By Gigi on December 11th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Absolutely. The French come out of the BBC program very well indeed. They did everything that could be done and yet have suffered the derision of the conspiracy theorists as if ever person down the line was corrupt and in league with the Devil.
Lord Stevens will give his judgement on Thursday and, thanks to Al Fayed, the inquest will be held in public. Whoever thought it would be wise to hold it behind closed doors wants their head read.
By John on December 11th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Also they havent answered why the CCTV cameras were off.The Questions still remain.
By shake on December 11th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Apparently, they are normally turned off after 9pm, and since no-one knew the route Paul was going to take to avoid the paps, it’s irrelevant.
By John on December 11th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Gigi you arent the only one,the Bbc show also noted that 3 out of ten British people believe it wasnt an accident and another 30% say they cant answer either it was an accident or it wasnt.
By shake on December 11th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I agree, John, that the idea to hold the proceedings in a closed venue was the least intelligent decision I have heard about during this entire disaster. All secrecy (limited access) does is fuel conspiracy theories and further erode the public’s trust in the officials handling this inquiry. If there was ever a time when the entire truth needed to be found and published for all to read, it is now. This has been the biggest public relations fiasco I can ever remember in my lifetime, with the JFK assassination running a close second.
By Gigi on December 11th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The matter of the CCTV cameras is troubling. One of my cousins is a French National who has lived in Paris all his life and he has disputed from the beginning the claim that the CCTV cameras are normally turned off at that time of night. Since I know and trust Francois and neither know nor trust the French officials, I shall believe Francois on the matter of the CCTV cameras.
By Gigi on December 11th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
How come then there are tickets given to people from speeding under that bridge the same night during 21:00-23:45?The speed limitin that roads was 40kms,but most of the Parisians drive it over 90kms.
By shake on December 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I wish I could have seen the BBC’s doc. With all the bugging- was it possible to have cameras turned off knowing Dodi discussed routes to where he was going via phone? Was there any mention why Diana received only a partial process from the waist down in France- there are laws regarding this matter. The press reported it was confirmed today that Henri Paul was employed by the French’s secret service- I do not know what to think, however there are so many medical questions that have not been explained- that I have not heard answered. Its almost worth a trip to fly over if I could have a seat in the inquiry. I hope all comes out and Diana will be able to rest in peace.
By ann l. on December 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Ok so what was the real cause of Princess Grace’s death? she also died in a car accident in France. Sorry John but the arrogant French in my opinion wasted valuable time getting her to the hospital. Where I live in the US when there is a serious accident the paitient is airlifted to the hospital in record time. Also why bother having camera’s on the roadways if they are going to be switched off at night when most people especially in the summer are out and about having a good time.
By Trudie on December 11th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Well said, Trudie. There is still something that is just not right about this whole thing. Francois says there hasn’t been a French official who could be trusted since DeGaulle. I believe him when he says that, too. Why was our government (USA) really spying on Princess Diana? The reason given is spurious. Why were the cameras off, especially in that critical area where there have been so many accidents? Why was the critically injured Diana kept in the car for stabilizing for heart failure when that could have been done just as easily in an ambulance or a life flight helicopter? Who profitted most from the death of Princess Diana? The answer to that is Charles and Camilla. The finger still points toward them in my own mind. I doubt I am alone in this.
By Gigi on December 11th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I am just VERY confused as to WHY IN THE WORLD the US CIA was spying on Diana. That makes not one bit of sense to me, unless they were asked to do so by someone else. I can’t imagine any reason they would otherwise have. She wasn’t in the US at the time, and she was not dating an American. If someone could please explain this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
By Jennifer on December 12th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Gigi I agree with you Camilla and Charles had most to gain from Diana’s death but then again so did the Arms dealers her work with the landmines would have cost them plenty. But what bothers me the most is our governments involvement in tapping her phone What part of the country are you in I am in New York believe me 911 and Oklahoma were solved quicker than the mysteries in Paris that night.
By Trudie on December 12th, 2006 at 1:37 am
She was bugged from the Uk too.All big secret services organisations work together.This inquiry goes from one lie to another.
By shake on December 12th, 2006 at 4:03 am
Poor darling boys and the Palace,dont want a national event of commemoration of Dianas life,so they are pressing for a private one,they dont want her death anniversary to be marked.They will mark it in that laughable pop concert that has nothing to do with Diana.I hope the Spencers do have a memorial service of Thank you for Dianas life,and invite realy the people she admired and admired her back.Nelson Mandela,or the great charity workers she was close with.The darling boys can remember her with Camilla.Iam sure she will share her memories with them.What losers God.What kind of sons are they?
By shake on December 12th, 2006 at 4:11 am
The NSA now claims they were not spying on Diana. The plot thickens, to say the least.
By Gigi on December 12th, 2006 at 4:17 am
Diana probably was planning the 9/11 or even to get marry with Osama.Thats the only things we havent heard about her yet,but iam sure there is time.All and all it was a simple accident.
By shake on December 12th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Trudie, the accident happened in a tunnel, she couldn’t have been airlifted. Plus, the slightest jerk may have stopped her heart. They did their best in a hopeless case.
By John on December 12th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Jennifer, at the time everybody was fascinated by Diana. The CIA operatives may have just tuned in to find out what was going on. They had the capability and decided to use it. There was certainly no political objective, unless the Pentagon disliked her landmine campaign and decided to stay ahead of the game.
By John on December 12th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Why is it assumed that perfectly normal, likeable people, who at base are no different from you and me, are capable of such a vicious crime? Mugabe, Putin, Saddam, yes, but the Royal Family?
By John on December 12th, 2006 at 10:37 am
NBC news this morning reported that the NSA was actually monitoring Diana’s associates, associates of Al-Fayed. She was not a target. The US agencies like the CIA and the NSA really had no interest in Princess Diana.
By Positive on December 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I’m sure that’s true, Pos. It’s amazing how many stories are published that turn out to have no truth whatever. Disinformation, I suppose, or someone wanting to write a bestseller.
By John on December 12th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Nope.You should read todays ES.The police used the witnesses that fitted the accident.They dropped all the rest.
‘We made statements to the police on 16 September 1997. The police
came to our house to take statements. One of them took notes by hand
and the other typed them up on a machine. They printed up our
statements and asked us to sign them. They spent about half an hour
with each of us. We were not given a copy of our statements and today
we are re-reading them for the first time. We have neither of us been
interviewed by the police since September 1997. We were walking along
beside the dual carriageway just before the accident, and were
conscious that the cars entering the tunnel were driving rather fast,
at a speed normal for Parisians; just a few moments before we had
commented ‘These Parisians are crazy’.
However, our attention was drawn by the arrival of two large cars
coming towards us and heading for the tunnel. They were large,
powerful and dark in colour. Although they were probably being driven
at the same speed as the other cars we had seen passing earlier, we
noticed them because they were very close to each other.
Just after they left our field of vision, we heard a series of loud
noises, the sound of braking, the scrunching of metal (car bodywork),
a third louder noise consisting of a bang, and lastly a very loud
bang followed by the sound of a horn that had jammed.
Although we did not go into the tunnel we looked inside and saw a
mass of metal that was undoubtedly the car that had crashed. We did
not see the second car. We thought that this second car could have
left the tunnel already. No one asked us for any information about
this second car apart from the information we gave in the statement
we made to the [French] police.
A taxi was following behind at a normal distance. It stopped just at
the entrance to the tunnel, nobody got out of it and we thought they
were telephoning for help. Apart from the statement we made [to the
French police] nobody asked us any questions about the taxi or its
occupants.
There was talk of a Fiat Uno in the press. It was said to have
collided with the Mercedes that crashed. We do not know if this car
was in the tunnel beforehand, because our attention was focused on
the two large cars. No one asked us about this car, and in any case
we could not have said anything because we did not see it.
Absolutely immediately after the accident we saw a man running
towards us along the pavement in the Cours Albert, coming in the
direction of the Place Concorde and going towards the tunnel. He was
about 30 metres from us when we saw him. He ran past and went
straight into the tunnel. He was fairly young and appeared to be
fairly athletic
By shake on December 12th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Contrary to what the media likes to believe and print, the CIA and NSA cannot just wiretap anyone they wish. They have to have a directive to do it, and to get the Director’s approval, they must prove that the person they want to wiretap has a probable link to something or someone potentially harmful to the US. That in no way could possibly describe Diana and I am glad to hear now that the USA was not spying on her.
By Gigi on December 12th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Its just been announced by Lord Stevens that the meeting will take place at 12p.m. on Thursday of this week.
By ann l. on December 13th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
I am sorry, Trudie, I didn’t notice your question about my location until just now. I am in Texas and I can tell you that when something criminal happens here, law enforcement gets after it very quickly because if they do not, the victim’s family have the right to call in the Texas Rangers to do an independent investigation. One of the most worriesome aspects of Princess Diana’s death is that here we are, ten years on, and the investigation is still incomplete and mired in the murky waters of suspicion and misdirection.
By Gigi on December 15th, 2006 at 4:08 am
Bottom line of exhaustive investigation: a drunk driver was driving over 60 mph in a 30 mph zone and crashed into a pillar. The drunk driver was a longtime employee of the Fayed family. End of discussion. No assassin on a grassy knoll, no Prince Philip hit squad, no alien abductions.
The late Quentin Crisp spoke truthfully, if bluntly, that Princess Diana’s fast and shallow lifestyle contributed to her own demise: “She could have been Queen of England — and she was swanning about Paris.  What disgraceful behavior. Going about saying she wanted to be the queen of hearts. The vulgarity of it is so overpowering.” (Atlanta Southern Voice, 1 July 1999).
Or to put it more kindly, Diana suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, according to mental health experts.
The “people’s princess” remains the icon of superficial popular culture. But the Royal family knew a very different character — the one behind the facades of glamour and pseudo-compassion.
Both Diana and her brother, Charles Spencer, suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder caused by their mother’s abandoning them as young children. A google search reveals that Diana is considered a case study in BPD by mental health professionals.
For Charles Spencer, BPD meant insatiable sexual promiscuity (his wife was divorcing him at the time of Diana’s death). For Diana, BPD meant intense insecurity and insatiable need for attention and affection which even the best husband could never fulfill.Â
Clinically, it’s clear that the Royal family did not cause her “problems”. Rather, Diana brought her multiple issues into the marriage, and the Royal family was hapless to deal with them.
Her illness, untreated, sowed the seeds of her fast and unstable lifestyle, and sadly, her tragic fate.
By redtown on December 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Many people have been in denial about this for 25 years, redtown. I agree with your assessment. In any case, it’s time to move on.
By John on December 28th, 2006 at 11:04 am
No – she was never diagnosed with BPD by a mental health expert. She was diagnosed with it by Penny Junor who to the best of my knowledge, is not an authority on the matter.
As for the idiotic ramblings of quentin crisp, he should consider refraining from making unjustified and unwarranted attacks on the memory of a dead woman before he dares talk about ‘vulgarity’.
The hypocrisy of it is so overpowering.
By kit on March 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm