15

Apparently, the English monarchy had the motive and the opportunity:

In 1997, Princess Diana (Princess of Wales) and Dodi Fayed (son of Mohamed Fayed, owner of the Ritz Hotel and Harrods) were killed in a car accident while trying to get away from press photographers in Paris. The scandal surrounding their relationship (Dodi was Muslim whilst Diana was the mother of the future head of the Church of England) has led many people to speculate that they were actually killed in order to prevent further scandal to the throne of England.
--source

Furthermore, this theory was publicly supported by Dodi's father:

Mohamed Al Fayed, father of Dodi, repeated his allegations of a massive cover-up involving the Royal family, paparazzi and for the first time Diana's sister. He has previously included British intelligence services in the alleged plot.
--source

Is it possible that he was right? Is there any strong evidence that not all has been said of this tragic death in the jury verdict?

Are the official conclusions supported by enough evidence, or are they mere speculation?

  • 4
    The question speculative and subjective. There can't be clear answer, just speculations and opinions. – Egle Mar 29 '11 at 19:54
  • 2
    @Egle Are judgements by courts and juries considered speculation and/or opinion ? – Rusty Mar 29 '11 at 20:08
  • 1
    @Egle, the verdict is linked in the question, so don't bother :-) – Sklivvz Mar 29 '11 at 20:41
  • 2
    @Sklivvz: don't you think that the very fact that their death didn't avoid scandal kinda nips this conspiracy theory in the bud? – Raskolnikov Mar 29 '11 at 21:52
  • 3
    I've always thought this seems like the most unlikely way to plan to murder someone, how exactly would the Royal Family have caused the driver to get drunk and drive the car out of control into a concrete pilar, and make sure no was wearing a seat belt. Too many things could have gone wrong with the plan, even if they could assure the car would crash, if the car had hit the flat wall on the other side of the tunnel, or Diana have worn her seat belt, it seems highly likely she could have survived. There are better ways to assassinate people I am sure! – Moz Mar 30 '11 at 11:38
13

The verdict of the jury (official conclusions) are supported by enough evidence.

But Mohamed Al Fayed says different...

Al Fayed's spokesman Michael Cole told GMTV today: "When he made that declaration, it was on the assumption that the jury would be allowed to hear everything. They weren't." --source

What the jury didn't hear was Al Fayed's last minute attempt to change his story...

Al Fayed's allegations at the start of the inquest:

...Mr Al Fayed’s core belief, and his express evidence at the inquest that the Duke of Edinburgh was a “murderer” who organised the assassination by the SIS of both Diana, Princess of Wales and his son.

During the last month of the inquest Al Fayed's legal advisers submitted an application for permission to apply for judicial review of...

...a decision of the Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London (Lord Justice Scott Baker) who refused an application to call His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh to give evidence and to request Her Majesty The Queen to answer a number of specified questions...

In the application they proposed a new theory....

...suggested, was that the jury should determine “whether the Royal Family and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh particularly (in respect of whom Diana, Princess of Wales expressed fears) contributed to a climate in which rogue elements in the SIS “took matters into their own hands” to ensure that Diana, Princess of Wales was killed, injured or frightened in a staged accident.

This suggestion, advanced for the first time by Mr Mansfield*, was based on what was described as a “troublesome” or “turbulent” priest thesis, a reference to the consequences of King Henry II’s denigration of Thomas Becket, and the hasty rush in 1170 by four knights to murder him in Canterbury Cathedral. The argument is summarised in the letter before claim from Mr Al Fayed’s solicitors dated 14 March 2008:

“This thesis is based on the proposition that those who are committed to the interests of the Monarchy may form their own view as to what would be best in the Monarch’s best interests, and how best to protect it from perceived threats. Action may be taken to that end without orders to that effect from any member of the Royal Family; those actions may include acts which would never be countenanced by the Royal Family if they were ever consulted.”

The application was dismissed 18 March 2008.

Summation:

For some years, Mr Al Fayed has expressed the firm belief that his son and the Princess of Wales were murdered in furtherance of a conspiracy to kill them or do them serious harm... In the light of the evidence, Mr Mansfield QC has, quite properly, accepted that there is no direct evidence that the Duke played any part in the deaths and has accepted that there is no direct evidence of any involvement of the SIS... --Ruling on Verdicts

**Mansfield QC: Al Fayed's attorney*

Links of interest:

Coroner's ruling on the verdicts
Hearing transcripts
Directions and decisions
Evidence

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .