KEY POINTS:
Lord Justice Scott Baker, the coroner presiding over the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed, is obviously bent on clearing up the matter once and for all. He was, he said, determined to be so thorough that public concern that something sinister
had occurred 10 years ago would be either dispelled or substantiated. To that end, the jury of six women and five men have been told to "fully and fearlessly" examine whether there was any truth in the claim that the couple were murdered by British spies on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh.
The intention is commendable. Those who believe the Princess was assassinated have long viewed the lack of an inquest immediately after her death as grist to their mill. The public, they say, have an absolute right to know what happened to Diana. Just a few days into what is expected to be a six-month inquiry, Lord Justice Baker is doing his utmost to ensure this occurs, ordering that the public have access to all the evidence. Yet what are the chances that his inquiry will put an end to the suspicion? Absolutely none. Quite simply, people relish a good conspiracy theory.
This one, as promoted by Dodi's father, Mohamed al-Fayed, is as fine as they come. Its thesis, that the royal family could not accept an Egyptian Muslim becoming the stepfather to the future king of England, is embellished in several ways. One is the mysterious Fiat Uno that is said to have hit the couple's Mercedes just before it crashed in a Paris tunnel. It has never been found. Another is the explosion or blinding flash that witnesses reported just before the crash. According to the Fayed theory, both point to MI6's orchestration of the accident.
It is not a view accepted as credible by two previous probes. A two-year French inquiry found that Henri Paul, the Mercedes driver, was drunk, under the influence of anti-depressants and driving too fast. A later British report, the product of three years' work by a dozen detectives, reached the same conclusion. Diana's death, said former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord John Stevens, was a "tragic accident".
That did not sit well with Mr Fayed. He claimed the investigators had been blackmailed by British intelligence into ruling out foul play. This rather overlooked Lord Stevens' impressive reputation for taking on intelligence services, the police and politicians during an inquiry into events in Northern Ireland. But this response has become standard for Mr Fayed, who has spent millions promoting his view through PR and lawsuits. Unsurprisingly, he was quick to accuse Lord Justice Baker of "bias" after the coroner swiftly debunked several of the cornerstones of his theory.
Already, it is clear Mr Fayed will not accept the verdict of this inquest. Nor, whatever its thoroughness, will many others. They will not concede that the royal family must surely have known that killing such a revered figure as Diana would be counter-productive. And that organising her death that August evening would have been very difficult, given her chaotic schedule. And that, once the enormity of the incident was known, the Fiat driver would not have been in a hurry to report to the police.
In essence, the conspiracy theorists struggle to conceive that a woman whose life was immersed in glamour could perish in such banal circumstances. That she, like thousands of others, could be the victim of alcohol-fuelled bravado, in this instance by a driver intent on leading the paparazzi a merry dance. And that she might well have lived had she been wearing a seatbelt. When a woman is as adored as Diana, the mundane can be so much more difficult to accept.
