Was Princess Diana offered security after her divorce?

[antelopevalley]

There is an interesting article in The Sun that says amongst other things, that Harry is asking lots of questions about Diana's death e.g. " Official judicial sources in Paris say the Duke of Sussex’s researchers have been seeking information about the car crash that killed his mother 25 years ago." One of the questions is allegedly whether Diana had been offered security after her divorce.

After her fatal crash Scotland Yard asked why Diana had no security. Tina Brown said that Diana had turned down security. But the suspicion is that Diana is in the same situation as Harry i.e. only offered security if attending an official royal event such as the Jubilee, but refused security for the rest of the time.

I know it is The Sun, but given Harry's fight around official security in the UK, which he has offered to pay for but still been refused - it rings true that he would be asking questions about his mother's security. It is clear if she was using official security at the time, she would still be alive.

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/19503595/prince-harry-diana-final-moments-book/

The out of the way I am referring to is the trip from the ritz, that made them end up at the tunnel.

They were not in the middle of nowhere, they were in the city centre. The dr did explain that they had to go slow in order to stabilise her. Diana was described as being agitated moving around in the back seat when they found her.

The crash happened at 12.40, she was not in hospital till 02.06
A normal report would ask or see what the driver speed was, compared with how close the hospital was (the one they chose was 3miles away, I think). None of that was done. Hence me saying they wanted to wrap things up quickly.

As I say, all will be explained on Sunday

Sorry @notanotheroneagain i'm confused - easily done! You said earlier

"did the French question why it took so long to get her to hospital, they don't seem to have asked why they even took such a long out of the way route."

Which is why I thought you were querying why they took a long out of the way route to the hospital. But are you saying why did they (Diana and Dodi) leave the Ritz and take the route they did? Am not sure how that makes a difference?

I think Paget references the French inquiry conclusions which paraphrasing says 'treatment given at scene was correct, fact that she was alive reaching hospital is testimony to care provided, journey was at the right speed, her injuries would be fatal in most circumstances. And Paget agreed with these conclusions

sorry if I'm being obtuse but I'm not understanding

Did Dodi not change the route to try to shake off the paps ?

There is footage showing that the alleged “ chase” by paps didn’t happen . Harry claimed he was followed from a charity event yet not one CCTV camera picked it up . Also , the widely available footage shows no chase .

So you’re publicising a Channel 5 documentary?

I watched part of the documentary last night on Diana - she was hassled beyond belief. So glad that things have improved in the coverage of the RF, even if it's not perfect, you don't get the physical pile-one - just that on Social Media.

I could be wrong but I think when writing that, Jephson wasn't aware that Martin Bashir had put all sorts of doubts in Diana's mind about his integrity and that of his staff. She didn't know who she could trust at that point basically which is an awful position to be in. So what he deemed "reckless" was her thinking that she was distancing herself from disloyal staff.

Jephson received substantial damages from the Beeb when this came to light which he donated to a children's hospice in Wales on behalf of Diana.

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a39475545/patrick-jephson-princess-diana-private-secretary-martin-bashir-interview/

I agree. It was disgusting how some members of the press physically hassled her and even spat and swore at her on some occasions to provoke a reaction they could photograph. Truly horrific.

I posted a list of questions that I did not think were answered, so the 'I'm confused' nonsense is what does not make sense. My posts are a continuation of what I said before, is there any need to repeat. I can read and I don't call out posters when it's clear they are answering and referring what they have posted before, all in the same thread ?

Several posters latched on the one point of how she got to hospital, but did not address the other questions.

No, I'm not bloody promoting a channel 5 documentary. I clearly stated that I believe the main people who did the investigation here in the UK feature, and will give us more clarity.

Anyway, as I said several times, we will hear the truth from them - which I'm fine with. I would like to answer your questions and go further, but then someone will stick to this and twist and accuse me of sticking to a story, even though I say I am open to answers presented with proof.

The constant name changing is confusing, btw.

It was disgusting how some members of the press physically hassled her and even spat and swore at her on some occasions to provoke a reaction they could photograph. Truly horrific.

Things didn’t change for quite some time after that - Kate Middleton wasn’t entitled to any protection as just a royal girlfriend and also had to put up with regular press harassment. As a young woman in her 20s trying to go about her life, it must have been very difficult.

Here’s a video of her walking to her car to get to work on her birthday one day, and another of her and Pippa waiting for a taxi one night. From what you can see of what she’s wearing, I think the attached photo was one of the ones taken on the latter occasion).

www.instagram.com/tv/CcJJFQyDyIp/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

I’m trying very hard to catch your drift, and have been for a couple of days. It’s just all been covered multiple times and then in detail by the inquest/inquiry.

IDK whether it’s just that - as PP said- some of us are old enough to remember it all and others aren’t.

The car that tapped Diana's car wasn't a photographer. Her driver was drunk and speeding. Diana wasn't wearing her seatbelt. Harry might as well have started a campaign about drink driving, speeding or seatbelt wearing

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I do think the You Tube video of Henri Paul bending down to tie his shoe laces in the hotel foyer 30 mins before he drove the car is very interesting. He hops elegantly from foot to foot in a squatting position (something I would find difficult to do sober!) and then stands up again from a full squatting position in one elegant movement without swaying or steadying himself. Very impressive for a man who is "apparently" intoxicated!

Habitual drinkers are like that, though. He was clearly a covert drinker with a prodigious capacity.

If you go down the road of saying “that’s interesting” and “that’s odd” you then need to consider where the logic leads you and the sheer number of people who would have to be in on any conspiracy (bar staff, bystanders, lab techs etc). It doesn’t make sense.

There's relevant info re: the French doctors and ambulance crew in the inquest transcripts:
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090607230405/www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/141107am.htm
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090607230559/www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/151107am.htm

The bar receipts and CCTV from the Ritz show that Henri Paul had consumed 100ml of 45% ABV pastis in the hotel bar and an unknown quantity of alcohol before arriving at the Ritz at 10pm. The pastis is equivalent to around two double whiskeys. The (two) autopsy toxicology results were heavily scrutinised and experts were of the view that he’ probably had 5 drinks overall.

I don’t think it was suggested that he was visibly intoxicated, but that he had drunk well above the legal limit, and therefore was likely to be more reckless and with slower reaction times due to the alcohol in his system.

Thank you, that makes sense Serenster so it was the fact that he had gone off duty, had a couple of drinks and then gone back on duty that was the problem. I suppose the thrill of driving the Princess was too attractive to turn down when any sensible person who wanted to keep their job and the trust of the family would say "sorry can't do I have had two drinks".

He was probably not raging drunk but intoxicated enough to be foolhardy. Showing off that he could outrun paps, that sort of thing.
It was and still is just so shocking... a chain of events that led to her death.

If you go down the road of saying “that’s interesting” and “that’s odd” you then need to consider where the logic leads you and the sheer number of people who would have to be in on any conspiracy (bar staff, bystanders, lab techs etc). It doesn’t make sense.

I stated very clearly at the beginning of my post that I am not a conspiracy theorist. I believe that Diana was killed because of reckless driving and not wearing a seat belt. I was surprised however at how sober the chauffeur appeared to be.

And although I agree that the documentation of facts (such as the bar receipts that Serenster quoted above) is key after this sort of incident, anyone involved in the emergency services will tell you that even where there have been fastidious records taken, there are always conflicting eye witness accounts and recollections and contradictory evidence involved in the aftermath of a serious accident which are by their very nature, extremely chaotic.

And although I agree that the documentation of facts (such as the bar receipts that Serenster quoted above) is key after this sort of incident, anyone involved in the emergency services will tell you that even where there have been fastidious records taken, there are always conflicting eye witness accounts and recollections and contradictory evidence involved in the aftermath of a serious accident which are by their very nature, extremely chaotic.

You sounded like you might nevertheless be hinting at something. So I wasn’t sure what you meant.

Funnily enough, I almost added something to my post about how eyewitness accounts never quite tie up on all the details. So we basically agree.

I think I've gathered notanotheroneagain questions together (some answers have already been shared up thread but am trying to tie up loose ends in my head as much as anyone elses!)

actions at the scene

• who attended/why took so long/choice of hospital and speed of travel

Conclusions of Paget & French dossier:

The French focus more on delivering medical treatment at the scene and moving the patient to hospital once stabilisation is achieved. SAMU have a range of resources – general/specialist practitioners/ordinary ambulance/mobile hospital units. The French fire service have practitioners trained to paramedic standards and can deploy mobile hospital units and Drs.

Drs/medical practitioners in attendance
Doctor Frédéric MAILLIEZ - off duty Dr
Xavier GOURMELON and Philippe BOYER (fire services but medically trained)
Doctor Jean-Marc MARTINO -a specialist in anaesthetics and intensive care treatment and the doctor in charge of the SAMU ambulance. – arrived at 12.40
Dr Arnaud Derossi, co-ordinating the medical response at the scene, and Dr Marc Lejay at SAMU Control, made arrangements for the Princess of Wales to be admitted to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital.

Choice of hospital
Reasons given by co-ordinating Dr and receiving Dr – most suitable given nature of injuries of both Diana and Trevor Rees- Jones

Could Diana have been moved earlier
Combination of French process, difficulty removing PoW from car,
further medical examination on extraction revealing another injury, cardiac arrest and resus, plus falling blood pressure indicates (as supported in both French dossier & Paget that)
The treatment given was in accordance with current medical knowledge in the light of the operating conditions and injuries that could be detected at the time’
• ‘The type of injury found is commonly fatal, regardless of the treatment given. It is exceptional for patients with this type of injury to reach hospital alive’
• ‘By way of conclusion to this aspect of the treatment, no blame would appear to attach to the way in which pre-hospital resuscitation rules were applied. On the contrary, the fact that a trauma victim with these intra-thoracic injuries got to hospital alive is a quite exceptional occurrence and one to which a mistake in resuscitation can hardly be attributed.’

speed camera

Camera at Place de l’Alma - this is a traffic camera not a speed camera

Paget Conclusion/Comment
The camera had been the subject of much speculation regarding its purpose. In particular, it was often referred to as a speed camera, although there was no evidence whatsoever to support this suggestion. This particular camera was, and still is, on top of a tall pole above the underpass in the Place de l’Alma in order to give a complete overview of traffic movement in the area. It was not a speed camera and possessed none of the equipment required by such a camera.
Various witnesses confirm no speed camera, those witnesses that said they thought they saw a speed camera then confirmed they were travelling to the underpass from a direction that would not have shown the camera they claimed.

Speed cameras in operation that day as reported in French dossiers
La Compagnie Motocycliste de la Préfecture de Police [Paget Note: The Police Headquarters Motorcycle Unit], which had not set up any speed traps after 26 August 1997 due to lack of staff.

La Compagnie du Périphérique [Paget Note: The Ring Road Unit], which had set up two back-to-back cameras in Porte de Bagnolet, which were in operation at the time of the crash. The Porte de Bagnolet is five miles west of the crash site.

This unit had also set up two radar traps earlier in the day at boulevard Ney in the 18th Arrondissement and in allée du Bord de l'Eau in the 16th Arrondissement. Neither location was on the route taken by the Mercedes and both were dismantled by 6pm on 30 August 1997.

The only portable cameras fitted to traffic control lampposts on that date were located at the junctions of Port Royal / Saint Jacques and Foch / Malakoff, nowhere near the route of the Mercedes. Both cameras had run out of film by 26 August 1997 and were not replaced until 1 September 1997.

Mercedes
Did speedometer stick or revert to 0?

1. French Dossier D2729
   A photograph of the vehicle in its post-impact position clearly showed the speedometer needle at the zero position.

2. French Dossier D566
   When examined by Police Capitaine Francis Bechet on 1 September 1997 the speedometer needle of the Mercedes car was at zero. When examined by Operation Paget following the transfer of the vehicle to the United Kingdom, the speedometer needle was in the 231km/h (144 mph) position. It was ascertained that the speedometer needle could be moved manually to any position and that it would remain where placed. Operation Paget considers this movement to be normal.

Technical assessment by David Price found:
There were no defects on the vehicle that could have contributed to the causes of the crash
• There was no evidence of tampering or interference with the vehicle

It was and still is just so shocking... a chain of events that led to her death.

It’s still shocking after all these years when you look at the sequences - from the fact that she wasn’t even planning to spend more time in August with Dodi initially. She was meant to be travelling to the US with her friend Lana Marks. But Lana’s father unexpected died and so that holiday was cancelled, and then Dodi suggested that they could go back to the Al Fayed yacht since she was unexpectedly free…so many tiny things which meant she ended up in that car in Paris that night and which could so easily have gone another way. 😪

Oh yes, so much so. Sliding doors moment isn't it.

Like her or not, it was an absolute tragedy.

Not only was the driver accused of being drunk, he was also accused of having over 20% carbon monoxide - which would mean he can't stand still, vomiting, headaches , let alone drive etc. He was reported as walking around the hoteeell all fine.

The speed camera did work and someone came forward with having been photographed.

The first coroner died, the second resigned, the third also resigned. It was the 4th who was happy to go on with it.

So who moved the speed dial ?
The press gave out a number of what the dial read - I can accept that this wasn't true (it was said this came from the French police). we were also told about his cm levels before an autopsy - which I believe his family were not happy about.

Well, one good thing is that this will all be sorted out by a documentary on the television, whereas all the lengthy and wide-ranging official investigations have failed to produce anything satisfactory, apparently.

The Radio Times says "With access to police officers who worked on the case, the film paints a picture of what happens when calm, considered policing meets hysterical public and press speculation."
So I'm not all that optimistic that it'll answer everyone's questions.

(I quite like the Radio Times. My neighbour has a subscription so gets it regularly. She passes it on to me as I like the crossword and the quizzes, but she's away this week so I've actually got a current copy!
I know: it's the little things in life that please... 🙂)

Well, one good thing is that this will all be sorted out by a documentary on the television, whereas all the lengthy and wide-ranging official investigations have failed to produce anything satisfactory, apparently.

😏