Scottish boffin on inquest into Princess Diana’s death claims ‘virtually no evidence driver was drunk’

A Scottish scientist who worked on the investigation into Princess Diana’s death has broken his silence to say there is virtually no evidence her driver was drunk.

Professor Allan Jamieson also said blood samples apparently belonging to Henri Paul went missing before they could be independently verified as genuine.


Professor Allan Jamieson The Forensic InstituteCredit: The Sun
Henri Paul, the driver of the car in which Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed died


Henri Paul, the driver of the car in which Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed diedCredit: document
An investigation into the tragedy concluded that a specimen provided by French authorities showed driver Henri Paul had exceeded the drink-driving limit three times


An investigation into the tragedy concluded that a specimen provided by French authorities showed driver Henri Paul had exceeded the drink-driving limit three timesCredit: document

In 2008, an inquest into the deaths of Diana, 36, her lover Dodi Al Fayed, 42, and Paul, 41, concluded the driver was drunk while driving based on specimens taken after the fatal accident in Paris 25 years ago last week.

But speaking about the case for the first time, Prof Jamieson – who was part of Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed’s forensic team employed to examine the evidence – said: ‘There were curiosities and inconsistencies in the evidence that were not resolved during the investigation.

“I was asked to do DNA on certain samples, in particular on the driver’s blood sample.

“Although the samples appeared to exist in the photographs, apparently the box containing them had disappeared from the French laboratory which is curious to be one of the most important cases of the century. I will never know the truth about the questions that I asked.

Cops review appeal as ZERO armed units on islands following Skye 'shooting'
Scottish cops transferred as part of an investigation into a

“Even though the driver was intoxicated, of which there is very little evidence, there are a number of possible reasons for the accident.”

Prof Jamieson says the driver’s blood sample showed the same signs as someone who had suffered severe smoke inhalation.

He said: “There was a high level of carbon monoxide in the sample which remains unexplained to this day. It was the kind of level you would expect in a fire. There was no of fire.”

The evidence against Paul was overwhelming and the inquest’s decision was supported by Diana’s sons, Princes William and Harry.

Most read in The Scottish Sun

Blood provided by Paris authorities to the Royal Courts of Justice inquest in London showed Paul had three times the drinking and driving limit at the time.

After 22 hours of deliberation, jurors ruled he was drunk while driving, which contributed to the horror of 1997.

But Prof Jamieson claimed a French lab lost crucial blood samples to the accident before scientists blocked all requests for information.

Paul’s friends insisted he was not a heavy drinker and did not show any signs of drunkenness in CCTV footage before getting behind the wheel.

Professor Jamieson also suggested his Parisian counterparts may have been gagged. He said: “The French have refused to part with any laboratory information whatsoever.

“It’s never a good sign for a scientist when he doesn’t want to share his data with another scientist.

“If someone tells me my results are wrong, I’m going to flood them with data to say I’m right.

“Scientists may have been ready, but those pulling the strings cannot.

“I also understand that there were inconsistencies in the number of samples that would have left the morgue and arrived at the lab.”

He added: “None of these issues were ever resolved because the French simply refused to cooperate with us. My role was to look at toxicology and DNA.

“In neither of these cases have we received all the information necessary to make a reliable decision.

The jury said that Paul was 3 times the French driving limit

By Douglas Walker

THE inquest jury was told Mr Paul was twice the UK drinking limit – and more than three times the French limit – while driving.

His blood alcohol level is equivalent to a bottle and a half of wine.

But Professor Robert Forrest, of the Royal College of Physicians, said the Paris lab where the tests were carried out made a series of errors so serious that if it had been located in the UK it would have been refused an operating license.

These included keeping test tubes of Mr. Paul’s blood unattended overnight in an ice cream container.

This gave rise to theories that the sample could have been swapped with that of another deceased person.

The six-month inquest heard from 278 witnesses and found Diana, Dodi and Mr Paul were unlawfully killed. We told how he judged the accident to be the result of Mr. Paul’s drunk driving and the paparazzi chasing the car.

The jury foreperson said the deaths were caused by “grossly negligent driving”.

“That’s what I mean by a number of inconsistencies – given poor record keeping, they will never be resolved.

“There are a number of stories that fit the evidence, but the reality is that there is nothing that tells the whole story.”

Paul died with the princess and Dodi in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel after being asked to drive the Mercedes rented by the couple at the Ritz Paris hotel.

The former French Air Force captain was part of the hotel’s security staff and traveled at high speed to avoid paparazzi photographers.
Diana’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was also in the car but survived as he was wearing a seatbelt. But he claims to have no memory of the accident.

Former Harrods boss Mr Al Fayed has always insisted his son and Diana were ‘murdered’ as part of a British establishment plot.
But he was never able to provide definitive proof.

Diana’s sons Princes William and Harry have both accepted the inquest’s verdict that her ‘unlawful’ death was caused by the ‘gross negligent’ driving of Paul’s vehicles and the ‘following vehicles’.

It came after French authorities said in 1999 that the three deaths were due to “an accidental car accident”.

French investigators have dismissed Mr Al-Fayed’s conspiracy theory.

Martine Monteil, who then headed the Criminal Squad, said: “I had nothing but respect for his pain. Not for its excesses.
“The whole world struggled to accept that the Princess of Wales died in a trivial accident.”

Simone Simmons, who was Diana’s healer and close confidante, told the inquest that two years before her death the princess was so paranoid about safety that she thought her car’s brakes had been tampered with – only for the problem to be solved by wear and tear. .

I am 40 weeks pregnant and can do
I have a piercing on my EYELID - people always ask me how much it hurts

Ms Simmons’ statement was also read, claiming Diana had written her a note saying: ‘If anything happens, MI5/6 will have done it.’

Professor Jamieson ran the Lothian and Borders Police Forensic Laboratory in Edinburgh.

The expert resigned to set up the Independent Forensic Institute based in Glasgow.

He has experience in hundreds of criminal cases, including the Oklahoma and Omagh bombings.

Diana, Princess of Wales, right, and her companion Dodi Fayed


Diana, Princess of Wales, right, and her companion Dodi FayedCredit: AP
Mohammad Al Fayed


Mohammad Al FayedCredit: PA: Press Association
The Horror Crash Happened 25 Years Ago This Week


The Horror Crash Happened 25 Years Ago This WeekCredit: Reuters

We pay for your stories and videos! Do you have a story or video for The Scottish Sun? Email us at or call 0141 420 5300

Scottish boffin on inquest into Princess Diana’s death claims ‘virtually no evidence driver was drunk’

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.