The Sunday Times
NEWS REVIEW
June 14 1998

The other day I came face to face for the first time with the paparazzi
who witnessed and contributed to the deaths of my beloved son Dodi and
his beloved Princess Diana. I was in the Palais de Justice. It was not
an easy meeting. The courtroom was stifling and yet in one sense there
was also a terrible chill in the air. Diana's mother Frances Shand Kydd
was sitting just 20ft away and yet, all day, her eyes never once met
mine. She talked with the parents of the dead chauffeur Henri Paul and
gave them her condolences but never spoke a word to me. For eight hours
we sat together, but worlds apart. A father who had lost a son and a
mother who had lost a daughter. Mrs Shand Kydd's haughty refusal to
recognise my existence made me both sad and very angry. Surely at a time
like this one might have looked for some small sign of reconciliation,
some mutual sharing of the awful burden of grief. But she is an English
aristocrat and was too proud to recognise me. But I, too, am proud -
proud to be a working-class Egyptian. Am I not entitled to any common
respect?

Let us not forget that Mrs Shand Kydd was a woman who abandoned her
daughter Diana at the age of six to go off with another man. When it
came to the divorce, even Diana's maternal grandmother told the court
that custody should go to her son-in-law rather than her own daughter.

I was very angry that day in Paris and it boiled over out of court. The
heat, tension and frustration that after nine-and-a-half months the
truth behind the crash is still unclear were too much. If the crash was
a straightforward road accident, then surely by now the French
authorities would have concluded as much.

The fact is Judge Hervé Stéphan still has too many unanswered questions
and too many conflicting accounts to have been able to construct a
definitive account of what really happened. His approach has impressed
me deeply. As a father himself, he is sympathetic and compassionate. He
is also very thorough and meticulous. I place great faith in his
investigation but sometimes wonder whether he really has all the powers
needed to establish the truth. He has no way, for example, of
investigating the possible involvement of any foreign intelligence
agency. My sole concern is to satisfy myself that what happened to that
fine young couple last August was God's wish and nobody else's.

I have made no secret of my fears that there was indeed a plot to get
rid of Princess Diana and my dear son. To explain why, let me take you
back to a dark day last September when my wife and I came home from the
funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. My children, who are a lively
bunch, sat with us quietly in our family room overlooking Hyde Park.

My wife spoke about the happy days during the summer when we had all
been together with the princess, her sons and Dodi in the south of
France. "You know," she said, "in all the years I knew Dodi, we never
had a cross word." It is not many stepmothers who can say that of a
stepson.

It is a great comfort to me to know that at the time of their deaths,
Dodi and the princess had never been happier and we as a family had
never been on better terms. We all loved each other. I have always made
it a rule never to let the sun go down on a quarrel with someone I love
and I feel truly sorry for the Spencer family that there was so much
unfinished business between them and their beloved youngest daughter at
the time she was cruelly snatched from their love.

My eldest daughter, who is wise as only a 17-year-old can be, told me
that she and her brothers and sister had gone down to Dodi's flat to
watch the princess's cortege pass along Park Lane. "Do you think it was
meant, Daddy, that Diana passed Dodi's home and then the mosque where
you had the prayers for him?" she asked.

"Yes," I said, "just as it was meant that their coffins passed each
other, as Dodi left the mortuary in Hammersmith and Diana arrived, even
though they had come home by different routes."

At that moment, for the sake of my family and my own peace of mind, I
decided I must do my best to find out what really caused those two
wonderful people to be taken from us just as they were on the brink of a
new life together.

Make no mistake, they were about to become engaged. It is interesting to
see the sort of people who would deny that. As her brother notably said
from the pulpit at Westminster Abbey, the princess had at last found joy
in her private life.

I have no doubt that on her return to Britain, the princess would have
discussed Dodi's proposal with her sons of whom she was immensely and
rightly proud. Like any sons with their mother's welfare at heart, I
feel sure they would have replied: "Whatever makes you happy, Mummy."

The strength and cruelty of Establishment voices denying that theirs was
true love strengthens my conviction that there were people in this
country determined that the woman who had been ejected from the royal
family and stripped of the title of Royal Highness should not be allowed
to marry the son of the man whose disclosures about the improper conduct
of some Tory MPs had helped to bring about that party's biggest defeat
this century.

It was just a flirtation, they said, only a summer fling. That just goes
to show how little they knew of the woman in whose friendship they
preened themselves. The princess stood by Dodi even when he was being
unfairly attacked in the media. She was staunch. They were a pair. They
would not let malice destroy what was theirs alone.

Yet, it was destroyed. Oh, say the harsh voices, it was just a drunken
driver going too fast. Perhaps, but say that's not so? Do we not owe it
to them, to ourselves and to future generations to find out the full
facts while the matter is still fresh in people's minds?

That is all I am trying to do. For that I am attacked ferociously on a
daily basis. Why are certain people so frightened of the truth? I am
not, and if there is responsibility to bear, I shall bear it as I have
borne my grief. The attacks on me will not work because I have already
suffered more than I ever imagined I could stand and I have no interest
in the ignorant opinions of newspapers. Some have not even bothered to
cross the Channel to investigate properly what caused the death of the
woman they harassed for 18 years in the interests of sensation and
circulation.

Is that not extraordinary? Newspapers devote acres to trivia and attacks
on people who cannot reply, but they virtually ignore the biggest story
in the world almost on their doorstep. Why? Because the Establishment
does not want to hear anything other than "Speed and Booze" with the
blame, if possible, being put on me.

British newspapers are dedicated to the status quo and their proprietors
are nearly all pillars of the Establishment. Even Private Eye is on the
side of the haves, not the have-nots.

Two distinguished Time magazine journalists, Tom Sancton and Scott
MacLeod, found themselves attacked in the British press because they
wrote a book which actually investigated the crash in compelling detail.
ITN's court correspondent Nick Owen was attacked personally because he
presented a programme that looked into some of the unanswered questions.
Journalists are in the business of disclosure and yet, in this instance
alone, there is a force at work to stifle a thorough investigation of
the outstanding matters.

Why did it take one hour and 40 minutes to get the princess to hospital?
Why did the doctor who initially attended her for 15 minutes say he did
not know it was the princess until he heard it on CNN eight hours later?
Why did he not go with her in the ambulance to the hospital? Why have
some of the photographers failed to give up some of the pictures they
shot? Why was there a break-in that night at the London home of a
photographer who handles paparazzi pictures? Why have some of the
paparazzi lied about their role in the chase? They were much closer than
they have claimed and two motorcycles at the scene left at speed. Why
have all the closed-circuit television cameras in that part of Paris
produced not one frame of videotape? Why were the speed cameras on the
route out of film and the traffic cameras not switched on? Why was the
scene of the crash not preserved but reopened to traffic after a few
hours?

Where is the white Fiat Uno and who was inside it? What were they doing
and how have they managed to make the car vanish, virtually impossible
without skilled help?

Why did British newspapers not send any photographers to Paris even
though they had spent thousands of pounds tracking Dodi and the princess
around the Mediterranean? Were they tipped off not to send and if so, by
whom? There were huge sighs of relief in London that no British
newspaper had taken part in the fatal pursuit through the darkened
streets.

Who was the person in the press group outside the hotel who was equipped
like a news photographer? Nobody recognised him and, when asked, he said
he was working for "The Mirror". Who were the two unidentified men
mingling in the crowd who later sat in the hotel bar? They ordered in
English, watching and listening in a marked manner.

How did Henri Paul get 20% carbon monoxide in his blood when my son had
none? The journalist Tom Bower, who is hostile to me, says Henri Paul
breathed in the fumes from the car exhaust. As Henri Paul's neck was
broken, his death was probably instantaneous. Even had he managed to
breathe for a short time, it could not account for such a high reading
of toxic gas.

I am not a conspiracy nut and I am confident Judge Hervé Stéphan will
provide definitive answers to these and other questions. It is because I
do not want the conspiracy theorists making sport of this tragedy that I
am insisting every point is answered. Why would anyone want to murder
Dodi and the princess, I am asked? What could be the motive?

The princess knew the forces ranged against her. She was clever and
intuitive. She said: "One day I shall go up in a helicopter and I won't
come down." She also said she would not go quietly.

People fail to see the facts in front of their eyes. Last summer, the
princess was at the head and heart of the British Red Cross campaign to
ban landmines worldwide. The press whipped up a story out of the fact
that she was to attend a meeting in the Palace of Westminster. A Tory
peer trotted out to denounce her visit and the poor girl had to defend
herself by cellphone from the yacht Jonikal on her last holiday. The
peer, a defence spokesman we have never heard of again, won and she
pulled out of the meeting.

That did not matter too much. What did matter is the change of policy by
President Clinton who started out saying America could not defend South
Korea without landmines but, after Diana spoke to Hillary Clinton,
decided that landmines could be phased out after all.

What has happened now? Where is the worldwide ban? Without the princess,
it is forgotten. The British Army has started destroying its stocks but
elsewhere the good work started by the princess has stalled. If she had
succeeded with landmines, what would have been next? Fragmentation
grenades? Yes. Dumdum bullets? Absolutely. Napalm? About time, for
goodness' sake.

I do not know what the trade in landmines is worth but a figure of £500m
a year would not surprise. The arms manufacturers can rest easy knowing
that Diana will not be stopping their games now.

Where is the proof? The point about having a secret service is that it
does things secretly. What I do know is that this country has always had
to have its enemies and if they are not readily available, the press
will always oblige. Over the centuries there have been mad mullahs,
exotic despots, even Boer farmers - any threat was good enough. After
the fall of communism, there is no shortage of potential enemies to keep
the arms trade in Bentleys. Vested interests are very powerful.

Some people might believe the security services are just overgrown Boy
Scouts in pinstriped suits. The princess knew better. Who recorded and
leaked the "Squidgy" tapes, allegedly a telephone conversation between
the princess and James Gilbey? A retired bank manager was set up to take
the blame. Though the tapes were broadcast through the ether four times,
he failed to get a complete recording, but the full version was somehow
made available to The Sun and played by that newspaper on a pay
telephone line. Obviously, it was the security services at work. Our
fearless newspapers have never told their readers what really happened,
and isn't that interesting?

James Hewitt has said that he was threatened with death if he did not
break off his affair with the princess. A police bodyguard of whom the
princess was fond was returned to uniformed duties when his conduct
displeased those in charge. He was knocked off his motorcycle and died.
How many Metropolitan police motorcyclists have died like that since
1945? Not many, I bet.

The princess was unaware of the tragedy until she was in the car with
her husband going to an official engagement. "By the way," he said,
"your friend has been killed."

All I want is for the prime minister to stand at the dispatch box to
confirm that British intelligence was not involved during that weekend
in Paris. I know intelligence matters are not generally discussed in the
Commons, but in such an exceptional case, an exception must be made.
Were Dodi and Diana being observed by any of the British embassy staff
who have an intelligence function? Were their phone calls being
monitored? If so, their plans for imminent engagement would have been
known by those who had an interest in stopping it.

Imagine the situation: Diana and Dodi get married. They have two
beautiful children. They spend their time between Malibu, Paris and
London. The world still beats a path to Diana's door. Their glamour,
looks and radiant happiness make a striking contrast with the House of
Windsor. Their family life is an example of what love truly means.

The Establishment would have hated it. Just as it worked to keep the
Duke and Duchess of Windsor away from these shores, it would have worked
against Diana and Dodi. But her lustrous beauty and charm would have
defeated its ploys. Public interest and press headlines would have been
directed away from Buckingham Palace, with unknowable consequences.

The Establishment has run this country for more than 300 years and it is
not about to stop now. Its members run the country, not Tony Blair. If
something needs to be done in what they consider the best interest of
themselves and the country, it is done without needless reference to
anyone. It is so much simpler if everything is deniable. What is not
deniable is that the death of Diana was very convenient for some people.
Have you noticed how some people are smiling more often these days? No
more disputes, no wrangles, no inconvenient headlines? Everything is
tidily tucked away.

The ship of state sails on in majesty having dropped its unwanted
passengers. I am not paranoid, I just see things as they are. When the
editor of the London Evening Standard, Max Hastings, a snob and
xenophobe who began his campaign against me at The Daily Telegraph,
stoops to publish a gratuitous two-page attack on my wife, who has
played no part in this affair except as a gracious hostess to the
princess, then I know that the Establishment has given orders to attack
me by any means, fair or foul.

I have no personal grudge against the royal family - it is the sinister
powers of those who surround them that I believe present the great
danger to society. Some of these people are hell-bent on shutting me up
and making me a pariah.

In January this year, for example, I received a letter from the chairman
of the Royal Windsor Horse Show abruptly ending the 16 years of
sponsorship by Harrods, my London store. In my 12-year association I
spent more than £10m making the show a fantastic event for the Queen.
But suddenly, without any consultation, my generous and loyal support
was cast aside.

A couple of weeks ago, an insulting letter from the Royal Warrant
Holders Association suggested that I could be demeaning the royal family
by using Harrods notepaper with the royal crests to pursue "my much
publicised dispute with Mr Tiny Rowland". Apart from this being
factually incorrect I have never done anything which breaks the
association's code. So why should I have been singled out for such a
humiliating letter? At every turn I am beset by petty, spiteful and
malicious attempts to put me in my place.

I have even been accused of matchmaking. It is laughable. I am quite
good at commerce and I have other minor talents, but even my best friend
would not claim that I have the power to make a 36-year-old woman and a
42-year-old man fall in love with each other. What tosh, but that shows
the lengths my enemies will go to; in fact, when Dodi told me he
intended to propose to Diana I urged him: "Slowly, slowly."

Despite the massive press campaign against me, 95% of people in a
newspaper poll said they did not believe the deaths of Diana and Dodi
were an accident and outside this country virtually nobody believes it.
That is why the Establishment is so scared of me. I am used to being
disliked because I tell the truth. Though a cabinet minister, Jonathan
Aitken, lied to the cabinet secretary and was believed for a time, I
told the truth and was vindicated. My disclosures led to the resignation
of three Tory ministers, Aitken, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. I exposed
those people in the public interest even though I knew I would be the
target of the Establishment for evermore.

I felt people had the right to know what had happened to me, a foreign
investor who had brought £615m into this country in 1985 to buy House of
Fraser and its flagship store, Harrods. The shareholders were paid a
premium price and went on their way rejoicing. Only one man complained
and he had sold me the shares which guaranteed my acquisition of the
company. R W "Tiny" Rowland was a bad loser.

Because I had what he wanted, he unleashed an unprecedented vendetta
against me. All the problems I have had are directly attributable to my
acquaintance with Tiny Rowland and his methods of doing business. Had I
not met him and purchased his stake in House of Fraser, I would still be
what I was in 1985, a happy and anonymous businessman with never a
mention in the press, even though I had generated billions of pounds of
business in the Gulf which had benefited British companies.

I do not regret buying Harrods because I love the store. I do regret
meeting Mr Rowland, though, and trusting him. Without that deal perhaps
none of this would ever have happened. However, I still believe Dodi and
Diana would have met. I knew her father long before I acquired Harrods
and I loved him as a brother and I continue to hold his widow, Raine,
Countess Spencer in the highest regard.

I believe in God's will. I believe Diana and Dodi were meant for each
other. I believe they are living in heaven together. I believe they are
looking down on us and wish me to do my best to find out whether they
died by God's will or the hand of malicious forces.

As we sat after the funeral, my wife, who is Finnish, reminded me of how
we had laughed from morning until night in St Tropez, the princess
doubling over on occasions. My wife remembered a Finnish saying: "After
too much laughter, tears." So it has been with us.
 

WeThePeople Diana Forum