Mohammed al-Fayed and the Crash Controversy
Courtesy bbc.com
Trevor Rees-Jones told the media, “If I even thought he [Henri Paul] had one drink, he wouldn’t have driven that night.” [source]
So said the bodyguard that was assigned to Diana and Dodi Fayed that ill-fated evening. Rees-Jones was in the employ of Harrod’s owner Mohammad al Fayed – Dodi’s father – and was the only person to survive the crash in the Point d’Alma tunnel in Paris.
Rees-Jones revealed a lot in that simple sentence. Now, he has been tucked away, back to his everyday normal life, fully recovered save for occasional aches. He lives quietly, away from the press and public. To keep him from speaking further, the claim is that he suffers from trauma-induced amnesia. This could very well be true in some aspects. Look at what the poor bloke went through. However, he was coherent enough to state the obvious – Henri Paul was not drunk.
If you see the video footage of Diana talking with Dodi and Henri before setting off, you can tell that Henri Paul is steady on his feet, and looks competent. Trevor Rees-Jones’s statement backs this up. Rees-Jones was the bodyguard, his job was to protect Dodi and Diana. Why on earth would the man let a drunk driver operate a car, then sit in the passenger seat without his seatbelt? As a bodyguard, Rees-Jones does not wear a seatbelt, because he needs to maneuver within the automobile. He certainly doesn’t seem like a suicidal type of person.
Henri Paul was not drunk, but what was the cause of the crash? Speed was obviously a factor. The paparazzi were berated for taking pictures and causing the Mercedes to speed away in the first place. Then, at the scene of the crash, people believed them to be sensation seekers, snapping away without adequately assisting the injured people. Some took pictures, certainly, and one sought help. But what about the others?
The so-called blood alcohol level found in Paul may have been something that a “photographer” was responsible for. Were they ALL actual photographers, or were some more sinister? The driver’s body, following logic, would’ve had a non-existant blood alcohol level. Suddenly it turns out he had a level of almost 4 times the legal limit after an autopsy was performed. His body could’ve been tampered with either at the scene or between the accident time and an autopsy. So I believe that this accident was really no accident at all. Something was purposefully done.
Are the right people being held accountable however? Mohammed Al Fayed blames Prince Philip and calls him racist, but that’s just mere convenience.
“You’ll get slitty eyes” by being in China, Philip says, among other anecdotes. Things that an eighty-five year old man raised in the colonial era says out of ignorance, not genuine malice. For the Harrod’s boss, this makes the Duke an easy target. Easy, but not correct. Philip is an excuse for Fayed to vent his long-held frustrations over being denied British citizenship.
Al Fayed, with his well-known crooked payoff of British MPs, has most likely made many enemies. Enemies that would not think twice about harming someone’s family. That’s the world he moved in, and his son paid the price.
Unfortunately, King Harrods trod upon the wrong toes, and it came back to haunt him. It is going to take time to find out which enemy struck down his son and the princess. Hopefully his racist hatred for the British Royal Family will not cloud his judgment much longer, and he can find the real assassins.
Written by: Mandy
(c)2006 www.mandysroyalty.org
