Diana: Case Solved might have opened with “Once upon a time …” because it is the story of a princess and a complete fairytale.
Readers impressed by the credentials of author Colin McLaren, a retired Australian detective, should bear in mind co-author Dylan Howard was the Editor-in-Chief of The National Enquirer, a publication devoid of integrity or ethics. Unsurprisingly, considering paparazzi feed the tabloid beast, the authors absolve them of any culpability for Princess Diana’s death. Conflict of interest? Mais oui! But I am getting ahead of myself.
The book which is a conspiracy theorist’s account of Princess Diana’s death is a morass of self-aggrandisement, criticism of law enforcement, conflicting evidence and defamatory statements in a theatre of the absurd. The authors even indulge in speculation about what might have been if Diana had survived. I found these passages particularly offensive for the implication the authors possess a whit of insight into Diana’s character.
Where to begin when my incredulity ignited the moment McLaren hopped a plane to France in the aftermath of the accident. Seriously, WTF? I accept the case may pique McLaren’s interest but did he really prophesise corruption and ineptitude from the get-go? Think about it. If French police were conducting a thorough exemplary investigation, McLaren would have been banished from the scene. But, fortuitously for McLaren, authorities were botching the investigation.
I concede the investigation may constitute a right royal – pardon the pun – fuck-up. Who would fail to preserve the evidence and secure the scene of an accident which claimed the life of the most famous woman in the world? Who would allow paparazzi and other hangers-on to traipse through the scene, camera shutters clicking? What could possibly take precedence over an incident of global import? The dereliction of duty may be so baffling the mind inevitably turns to conspiracy or cover-up. However, the book reads as though the editor forgot to omit conflicting narratives regarding evidence, cause, motive and opportunity.
McLaren portrays Henri Paul, the Mercedes driver, as either paralytically drunk or stone cold sober on the fateful night. Witnesses speculate Paul may be an alcoholic and was certainly drinking earlier that evening but the book later claims Paul’s blood sample, submitted for toxicology, was switched with a sample sourced from an alcoholic. Sacré bleu!
The cause of the accident is also mired in contradictions. Paul lost control of the Mercedes because he was: (a) drunk; (b) speeding; (c) clipped by a second vehicle; (d) blinded by a light deliberately flashed in his eyes; (e) all of the above. The evidence does point to a second vehicle and the flash was possibly a speed camera activated by the Mercedes’ excessive speed (estimated at 190 kph).
The authors assign great significance to the second vehicle. They go to lengths to track the alleged driver whose only crime appears to be fleeing the scene of the accident. One of his two interviews is transcribed verbatim revealing nothing probative except an admission he was advised not to participate in the British inquest. But he never admits to being at the scene in the first place.
Did the vehicle contribute to the accident? Perhaps, in the way a dog running onto the road contributes to an accident. The likely scenario is drunken Paul in a speeding projectile Mercedes connected with the vehicle. However, it is unlikely either the flash or the second vehicle was causative because the Mercedes was careening out of control before it entered the tunnel.
On the topic of causation, I return to the aforementioned exoneration of the paparazzi which is based on the authors’ stupefying logic. Apparently, the Mercedes’ power and speed allowed it to zoom ahead before it reached the tunnel; albeit with paps in hot pursuit. What is the French term for WTF? Remove the paparazzi’s relentless pursuit from the equation and Diana and Dodi are cruising in the decoy car or, at worst, with drunken Henri Paul not driving at breakneck speed. No one but the authors and paps think otherwise. Frankly at this point, the authors’ credibility was on a slippery slope somewhere south of zero.
The authors dither over motive too. There is perfunctory mention of Diana’s campaign against landmines and its financial ramifications for weapons dealers. There is a rumour Diana is pregnant to Dodi paving the way for a blended family of the heir, the spare and an illegitimate Egyptian Muslim child.
However, the emphasis is primarily on the Monarchy, particularly Charles. The story is Diana is a keeper of secrets. Her knowledge and proof of Charles’ transgressions, notably bisexuality and homosexual affairs, are her insurance policy against Charles having her terminated to marry Camilla. Scorned women are a mainstay of conspiracy theories and Diana: Case Solved is no exception. Scorned women inevitably know too much and, sigh, are deemed loose cannons who must be silenced.
While the motives are dubious, the modus operandi is beyond the pale. How to murder the most recognisable woman in the world? If vehicular homicide is the objective, why take a chance on an intoxicated speeding alternate driver rather than the more reliable method of orchestrating mechanical failure? Further, how to ensure Diana is not wearing a seatbelt because even the authors concede she may have survived if she had been. The ineptitude of the MO eclipses the ineptitude of the subsequent investigation.
The title of the book Diana: Case Solved is a misnomer because nothing is “solved”. There is no compelling evidence of a crime or illuminating revelations about the accident, victims or Monarchy. Events are viewed through the prism of a preconceived lens. For example, the paparazzi at the crash site on the night claim police assaulted them and confiscated film and cameras. The authors interpret it as proof of the conspiracy / cover-up hypothesis. They seemingly never consider the possibility the police were disgusted by greedy insatiable vultures photographing a dying woman and the devastating effects of publishing the photographs.
The book suffers from being the product of two disparate authors. The detective may be a credible source but the book bears the grubby hallmarks of tabloid “journalism”. Its sensationalism, innuendo, implausible evidence and reliance on anonymous sources are consistent with the ethos of The National Enquirer.
Unfortunately, the Royal family are easy targets for the gutter press. Even in litigious times, the Monarchy is notoriously reluctant to challenge spurious baseless allegations in courts of law. Harry and Meghan prove anyone can publish defamatory comments with complete impunity. Therefore, we should read nothing into Charles’ or the Monarchy’s refusal to respond to rumours and accusations like those in Diana: Case Solved.
Sadly, the book was never going to end “they lived happily ever after”. My critique is not merely the book lacks merit. The book lacks empathy and compassion too. Diana’s sons must contend with another trashy account of their mother’s death which not only demonises their father but, perversely, defends the paparazzi. Honte á vous, McLaren and Howard, or in English “shame on you”.