According to Jon King a few facts can be agreed upon:
1. The autopsy on Henri Paul was carried out by a doctor who had a history of participation where the French government had an interest in silencing
notions of assassination.
2. The conclusions stated in the autopsy lacked internal coherence and consistency and were criticized by medical experts for that lack at the inquest
3. Henri Paul's blood sample was labelled "unknown man" and had alcohol levels and carbon monoxide levels that were not consistent with his
demeanor and activities on the night in question.
Blood samples taken from dead chauffeur Henri Paul showed "mysteriously" high levels of carbon monoxide, the Diana inquest heard.
The percentage of toxins in his system was so abnormally excessive that the Frenchman should have been suffering symptoms including severe headaches
and nausea, the High Court was told.
Yet hours before his death, Mr Paul was captured on CCTV at the Ritz Hotel parking his car, walking around and even tying his shoelaces in
apparent good health.
(This press account should read minutes
before his death, not hours, minutes
Here are remarks, on the carbon monoxide concentration
, made by the toxicologist, from the same press report.
Toxicologist Professor Robert Forrest, who has already suggested that Mr Paul may have drunk up to eight glasses of strong spirits in the hours
before the crash, leaving him twice the UK legal drink drive limit, admitted that he could not find any logical explanation for the findings.
"One is left with either analytical error or a mystery," he told the jury.
"It's either conspiracy or cock-up."
According to tests carried out by two French medical experts hours after the Paris crash, the levels of carbon monoxide in Mr Paul's blood ranged
between 12 and 21 per cent.
Personally, I think it is both conspiracy and cock-up. It might be more accurate to say "conspiracy, cock-up, conspiracy". The first conspiracy
being the one to assassinate Princess Diana. The cock-up being the decision to carry it out in Paris with the cooperation of the French. The second
conspiracy being the French effort to expose the first conspiracy in which they were unwilling participants.
The story of James Andanson, is the element that convinces me of the scenario set out in the previous paragraph.
His story is very simple and self contradictory.
He was not in Paris that night and can prove it. His car was up on blocks and not involved at all in the events of the evening. He was in the tunnel
after the accident and has the photographs to prove it.
The two most important elements of his contradictory story are that he was not in the tunnel and can prove it and that he was in the tunnel and has
the photographs to prove it.
Andanson was a well known papparazzo
. His white Fiat Uno would have been known by other papparazzi
. If a white Fiat Uno had been
connected to the scene of an accident involving papparazzi
, someone would have named Andanson to the police. It might have been possible to fix
blame for the accident on him, circumstantially.
Of course, if his car were up on blocks elsewhere and he were not even in Paris at the time, and he could prove it, as he said, that would be a
problem for anyone trying to make him a patsy.
Suppose he could not prove it. Suppose there were people who would testify that he was in Paris that night. Suppose these people could give strong
testimony putting him on the scene.
One way of getting around that eventuality would be to change one's story, acknowledge being at the scene in the tunnel and having the photographs
to prove it.
In that way he would be able to demonstrate that he could not possibly have been the driver of the white Fiat Uno involved in a
collision with the Princess's car. That driver fled and has never been found, nor has the car ever been found.
Andanson was an operator. In this scenario he was being positioned as a patsy, but managed to wiggle out of it.
Patsies are generally put into position by people for whom they work. They are betrayed by their own employers.
It is said that Andanson worked for MI6. To my knowledge they have not confirmed this. Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that Andanson
indeed worked for MI6 as an asset. In the normal course of things an attempt to make him a patsy would have been done by MI6. This would put MI6
behind the successful attempt on the life of Princess Diana.
Did the French intelligence service give Andanson the photographs to frustrate MI6? Did they deliberately plant the impossible blood samples into the
mix to express displeasure at MI6's temerity in carrying out such a high profile "wet" operation on their turf? Did they have a doctor in the inner
circle of intelligence confidence do the post mortum examination of Henri Paul and do it in a way that was farcical to further "rub it in" to MI6 to
do this kind of operation elsewhere and not to involve them in British domestic "housekeeping" murders?
Who knows? It's just a theory.