My position on this theory has not changed since the beginning. When you weigh the evidence, the fact that the driver’s alcohol level was over three times the legal limit, he was driving at a high rate of speed and trying to evade the perusing paparazzi is much easier to believe that a nefarious plot by the Royal Family and British special forces to eliminate of the the most beloved members of their family ever. The claims that Mohamed al Fayed puts forth are not instantly discountable, but when you examine how much of it bases assumption on another assumption, its credibility falls apart. With toxicology reports proving the drunkenness of Henri Paul, ballistics reports showing the rate of speed the car was travelling and no physical evidence ever being found to prove foul play, it’s credibility dwarfs that of al Fayed’s claim that the Royal Family wanted to kill her because she MIGHT be marrying a Muslim eventually, and she MIGHT be pregnant with his child, and she MIGHT want to move to California with her children to live with her potential husband. Occam’s Razor would clearly be on the side of the drunk driver theory, since it contains very little assumptions while the assassination theory contains many. The only real evidence supporting the assassination theory is the speed of embalming, which the doctor apologized for, but claimed if didn’t know he was doing any wrong. The white paint from the Fiat could have easily been on the car from a collision unknown to the hotel, say in the parking lot by a careless valet. For these reasons, I still believe that Diana’s death was an accident, although one that could have been prevented if someone hired to drive could have just kept himself out of the bottle.
My Final Conclusions