Princess Diana, The Prototype David Beckham: ‘It Was Murder’
IT’S 3873 AD (After Diana) and the papers carry news of the self-styled Princess of Hearts.
The Inquest into her death has closed. The ruling is that Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were unlawfully killed due to the “gross negligence” of driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi. Diana was killed because she did not use her seatbelt.
The snappers are pictured on the Times’ cover page. They and Paul are the “usual suspects”.
The Telegraph leads with “Let that be the end, say Princes”. Readers learn that William and Harry “hope unlawful killing verdict will bring to a close speculation over mother’s death”.
“Now let her rest in peace,” says the Scotsman on its cover.
So that’s it, then. Goodbye Diana. You came. Your shook hands. You were blonde. You went on holiday. You were a prototype David Beckham.
But the Metro newspaper, one of London’s top hundred free daily newspapers, wonders: “Diana: The final verdict. Or is it?” There is the “threat of a legal challenge”.
Is there? Even the Express leads with “DIANA WAS KILLED UNLAWFULLY”, accepting that she was not murdered by a combination of Prince Philip, Chicago neo-Nazis and a flash photography.
‘It Was Murder’
A spokesman for Dodi Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed says: “We’re looking at all possibilities.” No, not that Dodi and Diana were killed by the Queen Mother and Mr 
Grassy Knoll. Well, not only that. Fayed in said to be investigating the possibility of pursuing a private prosecution against the paparazzi in the French courts.
The Times hears Mr Fayed’s statement: “The most important thing is that it’s murder.” The verdict was “unlawful killing”. But that’s not important. What is important is: “It has been a long fight to uncover the truth. I am not the only person who says they were murdered.”
Indeed not. There’s Keith Allen, father to one-hit wonder Lily Allen, who the Scotsman says has made a documentary about the inquest into the deaths of Diana and hopes it’s a hit at Cannes. He says: “To this day I absolutely believe that this wasn’t an accident. I just know.”
The Times also hints that this is not at an end. Readers learn:
Serious doubts still cloud the question of how much Paul had had to drink, as much of his evening remains unaccounted for. With suspicious speed, the French authorities rushed out a statement that he had been three times over the French drink-driving limit.
The possibility remains that the blood samples from the autopsy were switched, whether by accident or design.
Says Mr Fayed: “I’ve always believed that Prince Philip and the Queen hold valuable evidence that only they know. They were not even questioned, but they should have been. No one should be above the law.”
Al Fayed’s Drunken Employee
Indeed, the rule of law must be consistent. As the Times also notes:
Only two days ago new laws came into force making it easier for people to claim against negligent UK companies for workplace deaths. But even if Mr Al Fayed could face such a claim over allowing the Princess to be driven by a drunken employee (and the Ritz Hotel was in London, not Paris) the Crown Prosecution Service would be certain to rule that such a prosecution was against the public interest.
Might Mr Fayed be sued? And what would that to do his conspiracy theory?
Posted: 8th, April 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Royal Family, Tabloids Comments (4) | TrackBack | Permalink
