Keith Moss, British Consul General, Paris: 22 Nov 07: 6.2:
“In Paris, because that is where the Embassy is located, the Consulate General was, if you like, a department of the Embassy and was solely responsible – and therefore me as Consul General – was solely responsible for consular and entry clearance activities.”
At 7.23: Hough: Q. Turning to the links between the Embassy and the Consulate, I think certainly in August 1997 the Consulate was in a building physically separate from the Embassy, but close to it. Is that right?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. I think that you had a line manager who was Mr Pakenham.
A. Correct.
Q. What was his role?
A. Michael Pakenham was the – his title was “Minister” but in effect he was the Deputy Ambassador.
Q. I think in August 1997, at the time we are dealing with, he was actually away on holiday and you were reporting directly to the Ambassador.
A. Yes.
Q. That was Sir Michael Jay, now Lord Jay?
A. Yes.
Three post-crash reports drawn up by Ambassador, Michael Jay, and Consul-General, Keith Moss, have been suppressed.
Keith Moss: 22 Oct 04 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“When there is an incident involving the death of a British citizen abroad, it is normal Consular procedure to write a Consular Report at the earliest opportunity, so that the FCO in London can liaise with the relevant authorities involved and the family. As a result of this incident, I compiled my report on Monday 1st September 1997. This was submitted to Sir Michael Jay, the Ambassador, who forwarded it to the Foreign Office on the 2nd September 1997. This report was made whilst the events were fresh in my mind and using contemporaneous notes I had made in a notebook that I disposed of once my report was written. The report was as comprehensive as possible.
“To enable me to complete this statement, I am using a copy of this report in order to refresh my memory of the events that took place in Paris. However, although I was its author, it is not my property, and belongs to the FCO where it lies on file.”1456
Michael Jay: 13 Dec 05 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“The death of the Princess of Wales was an event of immense importance, and as I shall explain required the concentrated efforts of an experienced team from the Embassy staff. The first comprehensive report of the events of 31/08/1997 was compiled by my Consul General, Mr Keith Moss, who had been with me at the Pitié Salpêtrière hospital on the night in question. The consular officers of an Embassy would normally prepare a report for the FCO on any death of a British subject abroad that required consular support, and I asked Mr Moss to prepare such a report. Mr Moss’ report was sent to Mr Francis Richards, Director – Europe, at the FCO in London. This report went under cover of a letter signed by me. I was of course heavily involved in some aspects of the events described by Mr Moss and I contributed from my own knowledge to his report.
“I subsequently sent my own two-part report to the FCO in two telegrams on 23/09/1997 (Serial number 934), the first part containing a narrative of the events of 31/08/1997, the second discussing the reaction of the French Government and people and the consequences for the relations between France and the UK. Both these telegrams reflected heavily my own input as well as that of members of the Embassy staff.
“I have no objection to any of these reports or records being provided to the Paget inquiry to assist them with their investigation.1457
“Thirdly, on 30/09/1997 I wrote a personal letter to the then Permanent Under Secretary of State, Sir John Coles, enclosing a private record that covered the same course of events from a more personal point of view. This contained personal detail about my interaction with members of the French Government on 31/08/1997, and also my meeting with the Prince of Wales and my conversation with him. Because of its personal nature, I regarded this record as being ‘In confidence’. Sir John Coles replied that he would add it to the archives but in view of its confidential nature would not give it wider circulation. I understand that this record has been made available to police officers from the Operation Paget enquiry, but I should once again prefer it if the record were given no wider circulation. In my view it does not add substantially to the other records mentioned above.
“In paragraph 22 of my record of 30/09/1997 I describe how, after the aircraft carrying the Princess of Wales had departed and we had returned to the Embassy, several of the Embassy staff that had been involved ‘met in my office and agreed a telegram reporting the day’s events, principally the support we had had from the French authorities.’ I draw attention to this telegram, serial number 848, both because it illustrates the manner in which we had handled the emergency and because it reflects the manner in which some telegrams were composed.”1458
Comment: Michael Jay describes three important reports:
These three reports – one from Moss, two from Jay – contain critical information on the British Embassy view of the events that had occurred. The third includes details of a conversation between Jay and Prince Charles – one of the prime named suspects in the case.
The British Embassy staff were closely involved with the post-crash events1460 – but even more significant, it has already been shown that MI6, whose staff were based in the Political and Economic departments of the embassy, were involved in the orchestration of the crash.
Yet none of these important reports were shown to the inquest jury. And since the jury were also not shown Moss’ and Jay’s statements, they would not have even been aware of these reports.
Why?
If there is nothing to hide in these key embassy reports, why were they not shown to the jury investigating the events that these reports are talking about?
Jay states that all three were given to Paget – why did Paget not mention the existence of these documents in its report?
Keith Moss stated: “This report was made whilst the events were fresh in my mind and using contemporaneous notes I had made in a notebook that I disposed of once my report was written.”
When one considers that the death of Diana on his territory could have been the most important case of Moss’ career, the question is raised: Why did Moss dispose of his “contemporaneous notes … made in a notebook”?1461
Again, the jury wouldn’t have been asking this because they were prevented from seeing Moss’ statement.
These issues are significant because:
There are conflicts in the witness accounts of key post-crash phone calls.1463
George Younes, British Embassy Security Officer, Paris: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 110.21:
“I first became aware of this news when I received a telephone call between 12.50 a.m. and 1.00 a.m. from the then Prefet de Police, Mr Massoni. My telephone rang and I answered that it was the British Embassy. Mr Massoni spoke to me in French and introduced himself as the Prefet de Police. He told me that he was calling as a result of the accident and that there was already one dead involved in this accident. He was under the impression that I was aware of an accident having taken place. I informed him that I was not aware of any accident and this is when he informed me that Diana, Princess of Wales had been involved in a crash in the Alma Tunnel in Paris. He told me that he was currently at the scene of the crash and that a Mr Al Fayed had died in the accident, but I didn’t know who he was. He did not tell me anything about the condition of the Princess of Wales, he simply told me that Mr Al Fayed was dead. I took all the details from him, including his contact number. He did not direct me to do anything. Once I had recorded all the information, it is my responsibility to pass it on. I immediately made an entry in the Chancery daily occurrence log.”
Philippe Massoni, Prefect of Police, Paris: 14 Nov 06 Statement read out 21 Nov 07: 55.25:
“I should point out that as comprehensive as possible a log of the events at the time was made in 1997. I produce this chronology to you in order that it can be attached to this statement.1464
“At 0040 hours [12.40 a.m.], the headquarters of Public Safety informed me of the accident. As I live at the Prefecture, I was able to inform my staff officer and my driver in a matter of a few minutes and to attend the scene, where I arrived at 0050 hours. During the journey, I alerted the Minister of the Interior, M Chevènement. When I got to the scene, I gave him a situation report….”
“Question: Did you inform the British Embassy in Paris of the accident? Do you remember who you informed and when?”
“Answer: This accident was of major international significance. At the same time as the Minister of the Interior was making his way to [the hospital1465], I notified the British Ambassador, as well as the office of the President, the office of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister in person. These notifications were done on my behalf by Nicola Basselier, my assistant private secretary, as my principal private secretary was on holiday at the time. There was frequent contact between my assistant private secretary and these high-level authorities. They were kept informed on a regular basis.
“Reply to a question: I believe that the British Ambassador to France was informed at the same time as the other high-level authorities that I just mentioned, as soon as we knew that the Princess of Wales was one of the victims of the accident. I can say that it was a night the like of which, fortunately, we rarely experience and in the course of which one has to take very quick decisions and to share roles effectively. It was therefore necessary to inform senior officials, including the British Ambassador, without delay. Nine years after the event, I cannot tell you if it was me personally or …1466 my private secretary who did this.
“I should like at this juncture to pay tribute to his excellency the Ambassador of Great Britain, Sir Michael Jay and his wife who, throughout the events, were present in the command post that we set up in the command post … of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. Thanks to their calmness under pressure and their efficiency, both proved to be of great assistance to us.”
Paget Report, p613: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“[Paget Note: Préfet Philippe Massoni, interviewed by Operation Paget, stated that he attended the scene around 12.50 a.m. His assistant, Nicola Basselier, was tasked on behalf of the Préfet to inform key people. This included the British Embassy. Philippe Massoni cannot recall after this length of time when this was done or indeed if he made that call himself.]
George Younes: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 112.10:
“After the receipt of the telephone call from Mr Massoni, I received a telephone call from a duty officer at the Elysée Palace. I have been shown by DS Grater a copy of the Chancery daily occurrence log relating to this call and subsequent entries. I understand that DS Grater obtained this copy of the log from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. I have had an opportunity of reading this document, which I can now produce as my exhibit. The time of the call from the Elysée Palace is logged at 1.10 am on Sunday 31st August 1997 and this is entry number 3 for the day. That entry reads ‘Telephone call from Mr [and the name is unreadable] permanence de Palais Elysée to inform the Embassy that Lady Diana had a serious accident, car, at tunnel, Pont de l’Alma, Paris. There is a death in her car. She’s being taken away to a hospital, Paris,1467 that is still kept secret for instant take all details from here’.
“To the best of my recollection, this was the second incoming telephone call in relation to this incident, approximately ten minutes after the initial call from Mr Massoni. As a result of this telephone call, I thanked him and I told him that we were already aware of the accident and that someone had died. The caller asked me if we had a crisis unit to liaise with the Elysée Palace for more details. I informed him that at that time it was only me, but that additional people would be informed and deal with the situation.”
Paget Report, p612: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Documentation held by the FCO, viewed by Operation Paget shows a copy of George Younes’s log entry number ‘3’ on the night in question:
‘T/C from Mr (unreadable) Permanence de Palais Elysée to inform the Embassy that Lady Diana had a serious accident car at tunnel Pont de l’Alma Paris. There is death in her car, she is being taken away to a hospital (unreadable) Paris that still kept secret for instant take all details from here.’”
George Younes: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 111.18:
“Without checking the original Chancery daily occurrence log for that weekend1468 and to the best of my recollection, the telephone call from Mr Massoni would have been either entry number 1 or number 2 of the Chancery daily occurrence log on Sunday 31st August 1997. This entry would have been made at the time of the telephone call from Mr Massoni, which I confirm was taken before any telephone call from the Elysée Palace. It may also be the case that my routine security check log entry could have been entry number 1 for Sunday 31st August 1997 or could have been one of the last entries of Saturday 30th August 1997, but I cannot be sure. What I can say is that my routine security check would not have taken place after the telephone call from Mr Massoni and therefore the security check log entry is unlikely to be entry number 2 for Sunday 31st August.”
George Younes: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 113.13:
“I can confirm that the handwriting and subsequent entries, up to entry 88 in the Chancery daily occurrence log1469, are definitely mine.
“The purpose of this occurrence log is to record all information for any future use. As an example, I would record information such as a British citizen who called to inform that they had lost their passport … et cetera.
“I have been asked where the original Chancery daily occurrence log is for 30th and 31st August 1997. I do not know where the original is. I do not know how long the logs are kept. To my knowledge, the security manager would have been responsible for retaining these logs, although I do not know where or for how long. Normally the occurrence logs are filed at the end of each month, but I was not responsible for this and I do not know how the filing takes place. I should explain that the occurrence log is not a book but is in fact loose-leafed and held in a ring-binder. In 1997, Phil Whiteman was the security manager for the British Embassy in Paris. I believe he is now a British police officer but I do not know where. Phil Whiteman was replaced by the current security manager, Mr Andrew Bishop. I would also like to explain that during a night duty shift, it is normal procedure for separate logs to be kept by the Chancery desk and the Residence desk.”
Paget Report, pp612-3: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“The copy log entries ‘1’ and ‘2’ [for 31 August 1997] are missing. George Younes believes number ‘1’ was the routine security check entry after midnight and that number ‘2’ referred to the call from Philippe Massoni. It is not known why logs ‘1’ and ‘2’ were not copied when subsequently the other logs relating to the night were. Christopher Whomersley, the Deputy Legal Adviser to the FCO, has indicated that to the best of his knowledge the original logs would probably have been destroyed in 2001 in line with standard policy. The FCO is unable to identify who copied the original log entries while they were in existence, and consequently who missed logs ‘1’ and ‘2’ and how. The log entries were made on detachable sheets running consecutively.
“While unfortunate in terms of providing a complete picture, the effect of copy logs ‘1’ and ‘2’ being missing is that George Younes believed the Embassy were informed by the police at 12.50am, while other Embassy officials have understood the first call to be from the Elysée Palace at 1.10am, around twenty minutes later. The evidence of George Younes is that both calls were straightforward communications of the relevant information.”
Paget Report, p612: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“George Younes … took the first telephone calls informing the British Embassy of the crash. George Younes believed this to be at 12.50 a.m., but records indicate it may have been at 1.10 a.m.”1470
Michael Jay, British Ambassador to France, 1996-2001, Paris: 11 Feb 08: 114.15:
Mansfield: Q. Are you aware that some log sheets for this night are missing?
A. Those I think are the – as I understand it, those are log sheets which were kept by the security guard who was on duty and who logged calls coming in to the Embassy out of hours.
Q. Have you been asked about this in order to assist locate them?
A. No, I have not been asked about it in order to assist locate them.
Q. But you know, do you, that some of them are missing?
A. I was told that when I was reading some papers in order to prepare for this appearance for today.
Q. Can you help or not?
A. No, I cannot help.
Q…. There is no policy of destruction within the Embassy that you are aware of?
A. There was a policy of destroying documents after a certain period of time in order just to keep down the volume of paperwork. I do not know what the arrangements would have been for those records.
Q. Well, clearly in the context of what happened that night, obviously records for that night would be considered to be of paramount importance at the time, wouldn’t they?
A. Of course.
George Younes: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 114.18:
“As a result of receiving the telephone call from the Elysée Palace and making the relevant entry in the log at 1.10 a.m., I then immediately contacted the duty Chancery officer, Mr Keith Shannon at 1.15 a.m. Keith Shannon did not reply and I left a message on his answerphone at home. I then called his mobile telephone and left another message. I continued to call his home number and eventually managed to wake him at home.
“Although the log might show a five- or ten-minute gap between entries number 3 and number 4, this is because I have to ensure that everything is recorded correctly and locate the details of the appropriate on-call duty officer. Additionally, this night was far from normal and due to the high volume of calls received, I subsequently only recorded what I felt was important and related to this incident in the occurrence log.
“When I spoke with Keith Shannon, I informed [him] of what I had been told by Mr Massoni and the Elysée Palace.”
Keith Shannon: Paget Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Keith Shannon stated that he first became aware of the crash at just after 1 a.m. on 31 August 1997 when he was woken by a telephone call from George Younes, the Security Officer at the Embassy. This call was followed by a second call from Philippe Massoni, the Préfet de Police of Paris … who Keith Shannon understood to be at the scene of the crash. These calls were his first knowledge of the Princess of Wales’ presence in Paris.”1471
Keith Moss, British Consul General, Paris: 22 Nov 07: 8.18:
Hough: Q. How did you first become aware that they were in Paris and they were involved in this accident, this crash?
A. I first became aware when I received a telephone call from the Embassy’s duty officer.
Q. Is that Mr Keith Shannon?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you when you received that call?
A. In bed.
Q. At home?
A. Asleep.
Q. Was that at around 10 past 1 in the morning?
A. My statement says 10 past 1, but I think it was a little bit after that.
Q. How long after?
A. I cannot really remember, but I guess it was 10 or 15 minutes probably.
Q. Did Mr Shannon tell you where he had got his information from?
A. If I remember correctly, he told me that the Embassy security guard had received a message or a telephone call from the – it is called the “permanence“, which is the duty officer, at the Elysée Palace. I think I recall him saying that he had double-checked to make sure that what he had been told was correct, and then he phoned me because of my consular responsibilities.
Q. What was your first action on hearing the news?
A. I asked him to repeat it.
Q. What did he tell you? What precise information did he give you?
A. He told me – he repeated what he had said before, which was that there had been an accident in which the Princess of Wales was involved. I think he said that Mr Al Fayed was also involved, and I think he said that he had succumbed to the accident –
Q. That he had died?
A. That he had died, and that the Princess had been transferred to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital.1472
Q. Did he tell you anything about the bodyguard or the driver?
A. I think in my statement I said that he did, but on reflection I cannot be certain.
Q. After you had got that information, got him to repeat it, what did you do first?
A. First of all, I tried to collect my senses. I then sat down and worked out the immediate things that I needed to do; for example, who did I need to inform? Well, consistent with what I said earlier, we clearly needed to ensure that the next of kin were informed1473, but I also obviously needed to ensure that the Ambassador was in the picture in view of who was involved.
Q. So to whom were your first calls?
A. Again, I cannot be precise on the actual order, but I am fairly certain that my first telephone call was to the so-called resident clerk in the Foreign Office, who again is a duty officer there on permanent call, to explain to him what I had heard and ask him if, through his channels, a range of contacts could be put in the picture, namely the Royal Household, bearing in mind this was August, it was Buckingham Palace, it was Balmoral Castle, it could have been other places as well; that the Foreign Secretary should be informed, Robin Cook, as was, who at the time was in the Philippines on a journey, and probably a number of other contacts as well. I cannot remember the precise detail, but there would have been a range of people like that who I – oh and the news department in the Foreign Office, that would have been another one – and left it for the duty officer, the resident clerk, to conduct that activity. I then telephoned the Ambassador, got him out of bed and told him what had happened and I also telephoned the Embassy’s press attaché, Tim Livesey.
Keith Moss: 22 Oct 04 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“On 31st August 1997, at around 0110hrs, I was sound asleep at my home in Paris when I received a telephone call from the Embassy Duty Officer, Keith Shannon, a UK based member of the Embassy staff. He informed me that reports were coming out of [a] vehicular accident involving the Princess of Wales in the tunnel by the ‘Pont d’Alma’ in Paris, and that she had been transferred to the Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital. He also informed me that the driver was reported dead, along with Dodi Al Fayed, and that their bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones was injured and had been taken to hospital. In order to make sure I had understood everything correctly, I asked Keith Shannon to repeat what he had just told me. He informed me that he had received this information from George Younes, a British Embassy Security Officer, who in turn had been told via a telephone call from the Duty Officer at the Elysée Palace.
“I immediately telephoned the Resident Clerk / Duty Officer at the FCO. I asked him to inform Buckingham Palace, number 10 Downing Street, and others, including the FCO News Department, and the Foreign Secretary who was at that time in Manila. These calls would have taken some time.
“I then telephoned Sir Michael Jay and Tim Livesey, the British Embassy Press Attaché.”1474
George Younes: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 114.18:
“I also called and informed the duty consulate officer, but I do not recall who this was on this night and this is not recorded in the log. It is normal procedure when an incident such as this takes place for the duty consulate officer and the duty Chancery officer from the on-call list to be informed by the security officer.
“I have been asked if I notified anybody else following my conversation with Mr Shannon. According to the log and to the best of my recollection, I telephoned Simon Jackson to inform him of a busy night ahead. I also recall talking to the Ambassador, Sir Michael Jay, by telephone and informing him of what I had been told, but I do not remember at what time.1475 I informed Tim Livesey, the press officer, at 1.50 am.
“At 1.55 am I received a telephone call from ‘Hotel Matignon Permanence‘, the duty officer from the French Prime Minister‘s office. By that point Keith Shannon had joined me at the Chancery desk and I handed this call to him.
“At 2 am I telephoned the Consul General and put him through to the Ambassador.”1476
Michael Jay, British Ambassador to France, 1996-2001, Paris: 11 Feb 08: 89.18:
Burnett: Q. First, when did you first become aware of the presence in Paris of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed?
A. When I was telephoned by Keith Moss, the Consul General, to tell me about the accident, which I think was at about quarter to two or thereabouts on the morning of the 31st.
Q. Can we take it from that that you and your wife were in Paris at the time?
A. Yes, we were. We were asleep.
Q. That is in the Ambassador‘s residence which is next door, I think, to the Embassy; is that right?
A. It is next door to the Embassy. They are linked by a door which goes through from one to the other.
….Q. So you received a telephone call telling you there had been an accident. Were you told immediately that the chauffeur and Dodi Al Fayed had died as a result of the accident?
A. Yes. I was told that Dodi Al Fayed had died, that the chauffeur had died and that the Princess of Wales had been badly hurt, and then I had another call immediately afterwards from the press counsellor at the Embassy, Tim Livesey, relaying the same message.
At 102.17: 31 Aug 97 Diary read out: “The phone rang about 1.45 am. First Keith Moss, then Tim Livesey, to tell me that there had been a car accident, that Dodi Al Fayed and a chauffeur had been killed and that the Princess of Wales had been seriously injured and was in hospital.”
Michael Jay: 13 Dec 05 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“I had no knowledge that the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were in Paris until I was woken at my residence which adjoins the Embassy at about 1.45 a.m. in the morning of Sunday 31/08/1997. I received two telephone calls in quick succession. The first was from Keith Moss my Consul General and the second was from Tim Livesey the Embassy’s Press Officer. They told me that there had been a car accident in Paris, that Dodi Al Fayed and the chauffeur were dead, and that the Princess of Wales was injured and had been taken to the Pitié Salpêtrière hospital in Paris….
“I have been asked, when to the best of my knowledge was the first time anybody at the British Embassy became aware that the Princess of Wales had been involved in a car crash. I have already referred to the consular report prepared by my then Consul General Mr Keith Moss on 01/09/1997, which I forwarded to the FCO the following day. This opens with the following passage: - ‘At approximately 01.10 on Sunday 31 August, the security officer, George Younes, on duty at the Embassy received a telephone call from the duty officer at the Elysée Palace. The Princess of Wales had been involved in a traffic accident in the tunnel by the Pont d’Alma and had been transferred to l’Hopital La Pitié Salpêtrière.’ As far as I was aware at the time, this was the first occasion that anybody at the Embassy was made aware that the Princess had been involved in a car crash.
“So far as I was concerned, I first learned of the crash when I was awoken by telephone calls from Keith Moss and Tim Livesey at about 01.45 on Sunday 31/08/1997. I have already described the circumstances of this earlier in the statement.”1477
Timothy Livesey, Embassy Press Attaché: Paget Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Timothy Livesey stated he was informed of the crash at about 1.20am on 31 August 1997 in a telephone call from the Security Officer at the British Embassy, who himself had been informed by the Duty Officer at the Elysée Palace.”1478
Table: Phone Calls Involving British Embassy Personnel – Early 31 August 199714791480
Comment: There is a major conflict over the early call from Paris Prefect of Police, Philippe Massoni.
The evidence is:
Massoni states: “I notified the British Ambassador”.
Younes says: “I received a telephone call … from … Massoni”
Shannon received a “call from … Massoni”
Jay: “I was woken … [by] Moss”.
Massoni recalls phoning the Ambassador – Michael Jay. Jay says he was called by Moss.
The question is: Is it plausible that Massoni would recall calling Jay, but instead what occurred was, he called Younes at the embassy and Shannon at home?
Younes has provided a detailed account of a very early phone call – “between 12.50 a.m. and 1.00 a.m.”:
Younes then says: “Once I had recorded all the information, it is my responsibility to pass it on. I immediately made an entry in the Chancery daily occurrence log.”
There are several problems with the phone call evidence from the British embassy employees:
Younes also says: “[Massoni] was currently at the scene of the crash”.
The evidence from the witnesses who were early at the scene reveals they were easily able to tell that there were two dead bodies in the crashed Mercedes S280.1496
I suggest that would particularly be the case for a senior police officer, as Philippe Massoni was.
There is no evidence that Younes passed anything on to anyone until after the 1.10 a.m. call from the Elysée Palace – that call came in approximately 15 minutes after Younes says he received the Massoni call.1497
The witnesses said:
Younes had earlier provided a detailed account of a Massoni call telling him of a crash involving Princess Diana, and had even said: “it is my responsibility to pass it on”. The first person Younes notified was Shannon – but not after the Massoni call, instead it was “as a result of receiving the telephone call from the Elysée Palace”.
In support of this, Moss makes no mention of being told about a Massoni-Younes call, only the call from Elysée Palace.
Younes makes no comment on why he didn’t contact anyone after the Massoni call.1498
Younes states: “Although the log might show a five- or ten-minute gap between entries number 3 and number 4, this is because I have to ensure that everything is recorded correctly and locate the details of the appropriate on-call duty officer.”
Entry 3 is the call from the Elysée Palace and entry 4 is Younes notifying Shannon. Younes says, “five- or ten-minute gap”, but the gap is just five minutes: 1.10 to 1.15 a.m.
The question is: Why does Younes feel he needs to explain the five minute delay in notifying Shannon, when he fails to explain the approximately 20 minute notification gap between the 12.55 a.m. call from Massoni and the 1.15 a.m. call to Shannon?1499
But that was not the case with the earlier Massoni call, because the log that included that call is missing – see below.
That means that the nine details of that Massoni-Younes phone call – listed above – are Younes’ memory of a conversation that took place eight years earlier1500, unless his evidence of the call has been fabricated.1501
There are several points about this:
Both Jay and Younes claimed they didn’t know what happened to the original log sheets.
Jay went further – he described how he found out the log sheets were missing: “I was told that [the log sheets were missing] when I was reading some papers in order to prepare for this appearance for today”.
I suggest this could be another case of excessive distancing.1506 If Jay had only heard about the missing log sheets just before he gave his inquest testimony, then I suggest that indicates to the jury that these missing log sheets can’t be that important. Then that perception is consolidated by Jay’s: “I do not know what the arrangements would have been for those [log sheet] records”.
So Jay doesn’t know – until February 20081507 – that the log sheets are missing and he has no idea how long log sheets are kept. This then indicates – I suggest falsely – that this issue of the log sheets has no importance to Jay and he can’t provide evidence on it. In fact, he said just that to Mansfield: “I cannot help”.1508
Michael Jay was ambassador – in charge of the Paris embassy – for around 5 years, from 1996 to 2001. Younes was employed as security officer in December 1993 and was still in that position when interviewed by Paget in August 2005 – so, over 11½ years.1509
Between Jay and Younes, over 16 years of experience working in the embassy.
I suggest it is unlikely that neither of them know what happens with key embassy records like these daily occurrence logs.1510
The use by Younes of the term, “without checking the original”, I suggest indicates that the original can be checked – in other words, the original does exist and could be located if really needed.
This is possibly an inadvertent admission from Younes.
The Paget Report says: “Christopher Whomersley, the Deputy Legal Adviser to the FCO, has indicated that … the original logs would probably have been destroyed in 2001 in line with standard policy.”
Jay indicates that these records for 31 August 1997 could have been treated differently to normal records, i.e. not necessarily destroyed.1511 In contrast, the FCO officer told Paget: “the original logs would probably have been destroyed in 2001 in line with standard policy”, i.e. no special treatment for these records.
i) Are the log sheets – which are “loose-leafed” – copied at the embassy or the FCO?
ii) What is the purpose of taking copies and then destroying the originals?
Younes said: “I understand that DS Grater obtained this copy of the log from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London”.
This indicates that copies of the occurrence logs are made for the FCO.1512 There is a possibility that the originals are kept at the embassy – see next point. That would help explain Younes’ comment quoted above: “without checking the original Chancery daily occurrence log”.1513
Younes said: “The security manager would have been responsible for retaining these logs…. In 1997, Phil Whiteman was the security manager…. I believe he is now a British police officer…. Phil Whiteman was replaced by the current security manager, Mr Andrew Bishop.”
In saying this, Younes has indicated that the original occurrence logs were kept at the Paris embassy, under the care of the security manager.
Why didn’t Baker request statements from Phil Whiteman and Andrew Bishop?
It is obvious that if there was any will on the part of Operation Paget or Scott Baker to establish whether the British Embassy had any involvement in the assassinations, the log sheets to examine would be the ones written up in the days leading up to the crash, particularly 30 August 1997.
Those log sheets do not appear to have ever been subjected to scrutiny. Instead what happened is the official investigations have focused on the phone calls after the crash – i.e. the log sheets after 12.23 a.m. on 31 August 1997. It is possible this misplaced focus is deliberate – concentrating the examination onto post-crash phone calls, when the real significant calls may be in the records that have not been looked at.
Entries 1 and 2 on 31 August 1997 must have been for calls that occurred after midnight and before 1.10 a.m.1514 – that means that one or both could have taken place before 12.23 a.m.
This knowledge places increased significance on the fact that the copy records for entries 1 and 2 have gone missing – and there appears to have been little or no effort to seek out the originals. It also helps one to understand why Younes may have been asked to provide a witness account of a phone call from Massoni – thus accounting for one of the missing log entries – without any documentary record to back up his testimony.
i) The report stated: “George Younes believes number ‘1’ was the routine security check entry after midnight”.
Younes said: “My routine security check log entry could have been entry number 1 for Sunday 31st August 1997 or could have been one of the last entries of Saturday 30th August 1997, but I cannot be sure. What I can say is that my routine security check … is unlikely to be entry number 2 for Sunday 31st August.”1515
Paget has misrepresented Younes’ sworn statement.
All Younes would say for sure was that “my routine security check … is unlikely to be entry number 2 for Sunday 31st August”. He expressly left open the possibility that the security check “could have been one of the last entries of Saturday 30th August 1997”.1516
Doing this enabled Paget to put Younes’ security check together with his false1517 account of the Massoni call, thus neatly accounting for the two missing entries – 1 and 2 – for the 31 August 1997 occurrence log.
But it quickly unravels because it is based on two lies – one from Younes, his false evidence of the Massoni call; second from Paget, because the security check may have been carried out on either August 30 or 31.1518
ii) Paget states: “It is not known why logs ‘1’ and ‘2’ were not copied when subsequently the other logs relating to the night were…. The FCO is unable to identify who copied the original log entries while they were in existence, and consequently who missed logs ‘1’ and ‘2’ and how.”
In saying this, Paget is – without any reason given – indicating that the blame for the missing log sheets falls on the person who copied them.
There appear to be several possible ways these log sheet copies have gone missing:1519
So there are five ways the copy sheets could have gone missing. This raises the question: Why has Paget focused the blame on the person doing the copying?
Paget says that “the FCO is unable to identify who copied the original log entries”, but this may be because the copying is not done at the FCO, but at the embassy – see earlier.
I suggest that if Paget had really wanted to find out who did the copying, they could have simply asked one of their colleagues, Phil Whiteman, who George Younes had already told them “was the [embassy] security manager” at the time and “is now a British police officer”.1520
There is a real possibility that the log sheet originals – or the copies, or both – for entries 1 and 2 have been deliberately “lost”, because they may contain information on phone calls that the authorities did not want the jury or public to be privy to.
I suggest that it is not a coincidence that the log entries for 30 August 1997 and the first two log entries for 31 August 1997 were not available for the jury to analyse at the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
The attempt by Paget to blame the copier for the missing log sheets could be an endeavour to make the focus of the missing sheets something inadvertent, rather than something sinister.
iii) Paget wrote: “The [only] effect of copy logs ‘1’ and ‘2’ being missing is that … Embassy officials have understood the first call [about the crash] to be from the Elysée Palace at 1.10 a.m.”
There are problems with this statement.
Paget has ignored the fact that having two log sheets missing, makes it impossible to know what their content is, and who made the two phone calls. Paget has presumed that they were the security and Massoni calls, but that may not be correct – see earlier and later.
Saying that “Embassy officials have understood the first call to be … at 1.10 a.m.” because the two log sheets are missing, indicates that the officials – presumably Moss and Shannon – are getting their evidence from the FCO copy log sheets.
Moss’ account – and we don’t have Shannon’s1521 – was: “[Shannon] informed me that … Younes … had been told via a telephone call from the Duty Officer at the Elysée Palace”.1522
So Moss’ information is based on what Shannon told him – “he informed me”. It is Moss’ recollection of the phone call from Shannon – it is not based on the FCO copy log sheets as Paget is suggesting.1523
iv) Paget has gone to “Christopher Whomersley, the Deputy Legal Adviser to the FCO” for information on what happened to the originals of the Paris embassy log sheets. They should have contacted the security manager of the Paris embassy, who – Younes had told them – was “responsible for retaining these logs”.15241525
Yet Younes describes phoning Shannon at around 1.15 a.m. “and eventually managed to wake him at home”. Then later in his statement Younes says: “At 1.55 a.m. I received a telephone call from … the duty officer from the French Prime Minister‘s office. By that point Keith Shannon had joined me at the Chancery desk and I handed this call to him.”
So Shannon is woken at some point after 1.15 a.m. and is in the embassy before 1.55 a.m.1526
This evidence indicates that Shannon is not UK-based.
It seems strange that Keith Moss – who was in Paris for five years – would think that Shannon was UK-based, when he wasn’t.
It is not known why Moss said this.
Younes timed the Massoni call at “between 12.50 a.m. and 1.00 a.m.” and the Elysée Palace call was documented as occurring at 1.10 a.m. This means that the two calls were between 10 and 20 minutes apart – not “approximately ten minutes”.
This gap is significant because there is no record of Younes notifying anyone until after the Elysée Palace call, even though there was a gap of approximately 15 minutes after the Massoni call.
Younes adds the additional unrecorded information about the content of the Elysée Palace call, yet later in his statement says: “The purpose of this occurrence log is to record all information for any future use.”
This raises the question: Why didn’t Younes record the full details of this extremely significant call?
Or, did he record it fully – and Younes has been asked to add information that infers an earlier call from Massoni was received, when it actually wasn’t?
Paget has falsely stated that Massoni said the British Embassy was called even though Massoni had repeatedly told them that he called the British ambassador.1528
The official general witness evidence – Younes, Moss1529 – is that Younes took the call from the Elysée Palace (1.10 a.m.), wrote it up in the log, and notified Shannon (1.15 to 1.20 a.m.). Shannon then passed on the information from the Elysée Palace call to Moss, who then in turn called Jay with that news of the crash.
Younes said: “As a result of receiving the telephone call from the Elysée Palace and making the relevant entry in the log at 1.10 a.m, I then immediately contacted … Shannon at 1.15 a.m…. I … eventually managed to wake him at home.”
Moss said: “[Shannon] informed me that he had received this information from George Younes … who in turn had been told via a telephone call from … the Elysée Palace…. I then telephoned Sir Michael Jay and Tim Livesey”.
Younes recorded the information received from the Elysée Palace in the log: “Lady Diana had a serious accident car at tunnel Pont de l’Alma Paris. There is death in her car1530, she is being taken away to a hospital (unreadable) Paris that still kept secret for instant take all details from here.”1531
Moss described what Shannon passed onto him – at around 1.25 a.m. – from the Elysée Palace-Younes call:1532 “[A] vehicular accident involving the Princess of Wales in the tunnel by the ‘Pont d’Alma’ in Paris, and that she had been transferred to the Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital…. The driver was reported dead, along with Dodi Al Fayed, and that their bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones was injured and had been taken to hospital.”
That was quoted from Moss’ statement, which was compiled with the help of his 1 September 19971533 report.1534 Moss backtracked on a part of this at the inquest: Hough: “Did [Shannon] tell you anything about the bodyguard or the driver?” Moss: “I think in my statement I said that he did, but on reflection I cannot be certain.”
Jay has provided two accounts of what he was told by Moss and Livesey1535:
Table: Accounts of Information in Call from Elysée Palace1536 to British Embassy
The British Embassy staff were asleep on the night of 30-31 August 1997.
Younes woke up Shannon. Shannon woke up Moss. Moss woke up Jay.
This is Michael Jay’s alibi for the crash: he was asleep until woken by Moss’ call – with the news from Younes via Shannon – at around 1.45 a.m., 1 hour and 22 minutes after the crash.
Therefore Jay couldn’t have been involved in the orchestration of the crash.
If the evidence from Younes, Jay and Moss was truthful, then the columns in the above table should all be broadly similar – because both Jay and Moss claim they got their earliest information from the same source: the 1.10 a.m. Elysée Palace-Younes conversation.1541
There are two factors that the table highlights:
The extra information that Moss and/or Jay were privy to – and Younes wasn’t – was:
A key point is that the additional information from Moss and Jay was all accurate – Diana was seriously injured, the driver and Dodi did both die and Rees-Jones was injured and taken to hospital.
Given that Younes was recording the Elysée Palace information straight into the occurrence log, we should be able to have confidence the log entry 3 is an accurate record of the conversation.1542
So, why is it that Jay and Moss have provided accounts that conflict with Younes?
There appear to be two main possibilities:
I suggest that point b is very unlikely – it is possible that one witness could make mistakes in their recall, but for two independent witnesses to make very similar mistakes is rare. It also needs to be considered that we are not talking about a long period of recall – Jay’s diary was written up later that night1543 and Moss says he wrote up his report, which he used in making his statement, the following day.1544
There really is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn: Moss and Jay received their earliest information from a source other than Younes and Shannon.
This is certainly not the first instance of lying or cover-up from Jay and Moss – see Part 4, particularly.
The question then is: If Moss and Jay did not receive their early information from the Elysée Palace, Younes or Shannon, where did it come from?
I suggest there is a real possibility that Michael Jay was called by Philippe Massoni at around 12.50 a.m.
When Scotland Yard interviewed Philippe Massoni in November 2006, they already had the statements of Jay and Younes, and probably Shannon (see footnote).1545
Already knowing that Younes and Shannon had stated that Massoni had called them, the police asked Massoni: “Did you inform the British Embassy in Paris of the accident? Do you remember who you informed and when?” In other words, Paget was asking Massoni who he informed at the embassy, and at what time that happened.
The police appear to have asked this because they already had two embassy statements – from Younes and Shannon – both claiming they had received early calls from Massoni.1546
There are three key aspects to Massoni’s answer:
Massoni confirms that he is referring to Jay when he says “British Ambassador” – later he volunteers: “I should like … to pay tribute to his Excellency the Ambassador of Great Britain, Sir Michael Jay….”
The British police were probably surprised by Massoni’s answer – given their knowledge of Younes and Shannon’s accounts – and they asked a follow-up question. The nature of that question is withheld from us1548 and we are only told the answer – Massoni reconfirms that the call was to Jay: “I believe that the British Ambassador to France was informed … as soon as we knew that the Princess of Wales was one of the victims…. It was … necessary to inform … the British Ambassador, without delay…. I cannot tell you if it was me personally or … my private secretary who did this.”
In this second answer Massoni opens up the possibility that he could have made the call – backing away from his earlier statement that the call was made by his “assistant private secretary”: “I cannot tell you if it was me personally or … my private secretary”.
In summary, Massoni’s account is that Jay was called – either by “me personally or … my private secretary” – “as soon as [he] knew that the Princess of Wales was one of the victims”.
It is significant that Philippe Massoni, Paris Prefect of Police, was not cross-examined at the inquest, and neither was George Younes nor Keith Shannon.1549
I suggest that Michael Jay has distanced himself by being placed, in his and Moss’ evidence, down the bottom of the line of notification: Elysée Palace – Younes – Shannon –Moss – Jay: “I was woken at my residence … at about 1.45 a.m.”1550
I believe that Massoni’s account is closer to the truth: “the British Ambassador to France was informed … as soon as we knew that the Princess of Wales was one of the victims” – at around 12.50 a.m.
In his statement Younes said: “During a night duty shift, it is normal procedure for separate logs to be kept by the Chancery desk and the Residence desk.”
Why wasn’t the Residence desk log shown to the inquest jury? I suggest that it could have revealed that a very early call was made by Philippe Massoni to Michael Jay.
Why didn’t Massoni give the police a straight answer to the straight question about calling the embassy?1551
There could be an element of cover-up in Massoni’s answer – see footnote.1552 It has been shown in Part 3 that the French police were heavily involved in the cover-up. The evidence in the earlier part of this volume also indicates that this operation – the assassination of Diana – couldn’t have succeeded without collusion between the British and the French.
Michael Jay was in charge of the embassy, which was the base for the Paris MI6 operation that was heavily involved in the mission to eliminate Princess Diana.
It appears possible that Jay could have had some involvement, particularly along the lines of maintaining critical contacts with high-level French authorities1553 – people like the Prefect of Paris, Philippe Massoni. It is quite conceivable that there could have been an early call from the crash scene – Massoni to Jay, maybe just to confirm that the crash had occurred and a report on the status of the occupants of the crashed Mercedes S280.
Massoni’s evidence indicates a call was made – “I notified the British Ambassador”.
Younes’ and Shannon’s unsupported earlier evidence – “I received a telephone call … from … Massoni”; “[Shannon received] a … call from Philippe Massoni” – indicates that there has been an attempt to cover up the identity of the recipient of the early Massoni call: Michael Jay.
Younes and Shannon have claimed they both received calls from Massoni, but the evidence strongly indicates that Younes’ call never occurred – see earlier. There is also no evidence – outside of the earlier third person Paget account – to support a call from Massoni to Shannon, and it is significant that none of Shannon’s evidence was heard at the inquest.
The following scenario includes some speculation, but is nevertheless based on the available evidence.
There is a possibility that Michael Jay was in charge of handling British communication with high-level French contacts – including Massoni – in the lead up to the crash.1554 There may have been a series of calls between Massoni and Jay in the period preceding the deaths of Diana and Dodi.15551556
When British police asked Philippe Massoni specifically about a post-crash notification call to the British embassy, he might have been surprised. Whatever is the case, it is clear that he did not directly answer and instead listed a series of high-level people contacted, beginning with “the British Ambassador”, who he later identifies more specifically as “his excellency the Ambassador of Great Britain, Sir Michael Jay”.
Michael Jay has never been asked about this account from Massoni – he should have been.1557
The known evidence does indicate that there has been a concerted effort by embassy staff to suggest that instead of Massoni calling Jay, he called Younes and then possibly Shannon:
The documentary evidence that could substantiate Massoni’s account of a call to Jay – the Residence occurrence log – was withheld from the inquest.
Although Younes gave evidence of receiving a 12.55 a.m.1558 call from Massoni, that is not supported by other evidence.1559
Taken together, the embassy staff evidence says that the Elysée Palace called Younes, Younes called and woke up Shannon, Shannon called and woke up Moss, Moss called and woke up Jay.
Jay says he wrote in his diary late on 31 August 1997: “The phone rang about 1.45 a.m. First Keith Moss, then Tim Livesey1560, to tell me that there had been a car accident”.
I suggest that Jay was fully aware – even on 31 August 1997 – that he was going to need a strong alibi for the night of the crash. Being asleep next to his wife was good enough.1561
Over the years the police took three embassy statements that have now been released1562 – Moss, interviewed on 22 October 2004; Younes, interviewed on 15 August 2005; Jay, interviewed on 13 December 2005.1563
Moss’ was the first – in 2004 – and his account basically supported Jay’s diary. He says: “I … telephoned Sir Michael Jay”. It’s interesting that neither Jay in his diary, nor Moss in his statement, mention that Jay was woken up by this call. Moss also makes no comment on the content of this call to Jay – it is inferred that it was to notify him, but that is not stated.
Moss describes the chain of calls: “[Shannon] informed me that he had received this information from George Younes … who in turn had been told via a telephone call from … the Elysée Palace.” No mention here of any Massoni-Younes call.
The next statement made was from Younes, 10 months later in August 2005. Younes introduces the Massoni call, but he puts it in as though it’s an add-on. Younes says: “As a result of receiving the telephone call from the Elysée Palace … I then immediately contacted the duty Chancery officer, Mr Keith Shannon”.
So Younes says he contacted Shannon “as a result of” the Elysée Palace call – not the Massoni call, even though he said that had come 15 minutes earlier.
I suggest that Younes has been told to put the Massoni-Younes call into his evidence and I also suggest he has followed that order reluctantly.1564 Younes’ account of the call is quite detailed – see earlier – in fact, surprisingly so, since he was going from an eight year old memory of it. I suggest the detail is in there to give it credibility.
But the reality is that there is no supporting evidence that this call ever occurred – and in fact other evidence indicates the first Younes knew of the crash was from the Elysée Palace.1565
The last of the embassy statements was made by Jay, four months after Younes, in December 2005. He maintained his diary account of calls from Moss and Livesey and this time introduced the words: “I was woken at my residence … at about 1.45 a.m.”1566
No mention of a Massoni call1567 – in keeping with the Younes statement.
Then Massoni wasn’t interviewed until November 2006. As it turned out, Paget officers asked Massoni who he called at the embassy. And that’s when Massoni gave his account of a call to the ambassador, Jay.
The balance of the evidence – gone through earlier – indicates that the Massoni account is correct.1568
Why was Younes asked to include the Massoni call in his evidence?
I suggest it was because at the time he gave his statement – August 2005 – it was known that Jay and Massoni still had to give their statements to the British police.
Jay, I suggest, was particularly keen to distance himself as far away from the crash as possible1569 – that is why he has been put to the bottom of the notification pile, after Younes, Shannon and Moss. Yet Jay – who by 2005 had left his position in France four years earlier – knew that Massoni might provide an account of a phone call that did take place at around 12.50 a.m.
Jay may have asked Younes to include the account of the Massoni call – so that if Massoni’s evidence was to be studied in the future, then there would be testimony from the British side that there was a Massoni call to the embassy. It would look a lot worse if there was no evidence from anyone in the British embassy of a call from Massoni.
I suggest it is logical that French authorities would officially notify the British after the crash – and that did occur when the Elysée Palace called Younes at 1.10 a.m.
Moss altered his account at the inquest, without explanation.
At the inquest Hough then asked Moss: “How long after?” And Moss replied: “I cannot really remember, but I guess it was 10 or 15 minutes probably.”
The statement account of “around 0110hrs” is reasonably specific. Earlier evidence has indicated that Jay was notified of the crash around 12.50 a.m. by Massoni. It is possible that Moss – as Consul-General – may be one of the first people Jay would have contacted. Therefore, 1.10 a.m. is a possible time – if Moss had been notified by Jay.
1.10 a.m. certainly doesn’t fit with a notification from Shannon, who was reached by Younes at some point after 1.15 a.m.1570
I suggest that Moss’ statement account that he was woken by Shannon at 1.10 a.m. is false. Moss may have inadvertently left the 1.10 a.m. – the correct time he could have been notified by Jay – in this account, not realising that it didn’t fit with entry 3 posted by Younes in the occurrence log.
By the time Moss was cross-examined at the inquest – three years after his statement – he appears to have become aware of the inconsistency between his and Younes’ statement and the occurrence log. When asked, Moss admits the statement timing of 1.10 a.m. is wrong – adding on “10 or 15 minutes” solves the problem, but I suggest it is not the truth.
The overall evidence indicates that it was more likely Keith Moss was contacted by Michael Jay1571 – not Keith Shannon – at around 1.10 a.m. – not 1.20 to 1.25 a.m., as Moss stated at the inquest.15721573
Hough – who evidently was putting questions based on Moss’ statement – asked Moss: “Did [Shannon] tell you anything about the bodyguard or the driver?” Moss replied: “I think in my statement I said that he did, but on reflection I cannot be certain.”
Moss had said in his statement: “[Shannon] also informed me that the driver was reported dead … and that their bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones was injured and had been taken to hospital.”
That is a straight statement – there is no “I think” or “possibly” or “probably” or “to the best of my recall”.
Moss should have been asked for an explanation for his change of position on this and the timing (above). That didn’t happen.
Why would Moss change his evidence?
There is a possibility that Moss has been given access to the content of Younes’ statement – taken 10 months after Moss’ – before he gave his inquest testimony.
If you look back at the table that shows the various accounts of the information in the first notification call,1574 Moss’ inquest account – once he withdraws information on the driver and bodyguard – lines up with the occurrence log on all but two points. One is the location of the crash, the Alma Tunnel, which Moss simply doesn’t mention at the inquest – that is an omission. The only other variation from the occurrence log is Moss’ diffident inclusion at the inquest of Dodi’s death: “I think [Shannon] said that Mr Al Fayed was also involved, and I think he said that he had succumbed to the accident”.
Now, Younes never mentioned Dodi’s death in the occurrence log, but he did have it in his statement – not as part of the Elysée Palace call, but instead he said it was in the Massoni call:1575 “[Massoni] told me that … a Mr Al Fayed had died in the accident”.
It’s possible then that Moss has lined his inquest account up with Younes’ statement1576 – a document that didn’t exist when Moss had put together his 2004 statement.
To summarise the factors indicating that there has been a cover-up regarding an early call to Michael Jay, and that he has lied when he claimed he was woken by Keith Moss at 1.45 a.m. on 31 August 1997:1577
Paul Johnston, private secretary to Michael Jay, has stated that he was in Normandy at the time. Although not directly involved in these events, he has, however, provided three accounts of what occurred:
Paul Johnston: 16 Dec 98 Letter to Hervé Stéphan and Marie-Christine Devidal:
“Nobody in the British Embassy in Paris was aware of the Princess of Wales’ trip to France…. The first person to have any knowledge of it was the duty officer, who received the call from the police just after the accident.”1581
Paul Johnston: 12 Jan 99 Letter to Hervé Stéphan: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“As I told you in my letter of 16 December, the Embassy was only advised of the presence in Paris of the Princess of Wales on learning of the accident in which she had been involved in the early hours of 31 August.”1582
Paul Johnston: Paget Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“[Johnston] stated that the British Embassy in Paris first became aware of the presence of the Princess of Wales at about 1.10am on receipt of a telephone call from the Elysée Palace.”1583
Comment: This is a further case of conflicting accounts in the British Embassy evidence – two of these directly conflict:
So the 1998 account to the French investigation is a “call from the police just after the accident”, but the much later account to the British investigation is the 1.10 a.m. Elysée Palace call.
There are a few points:
Johnston’s 1998 account is the earliest evidence of a call from the police, so it is significant, even if Johnston was in Normandy at the time. His information comes from either what he has been told – presumably by Jay or Younes – or from a document, like the occurrence log.
I suggest that if it had come from the occurrence log – and considering that it is a reply to a question from the chief French investigator – then we could expect to see more specific information, particularly the time and the name of the caller.1589
It appears more likely that Johnston has been provided his information from Jay – who I suggest would have been taking a direct interest in communications with the French investigation. Earlier evidence has shown that Jay was called early by Massoni, but he may not have been willing to pass on that information to Stéphan.
It may be significant that the 1998 Johnston letter is the only one of the three accounts where he specifically identifies the receiver of the call – “the duty officer”, unnamed.1590
It is possible that this is when Jay first decided to shift the initial call from himself to Younes, but at this stage withholding the specific identity of the caller1591 – “the police”.
Johnston’s Paget account appears to fit with what was submitted by Jay, Moss, Shannon – see earlier.
The elephant in the room in this section is the failure of Baker to ensure that the jury had access to the Residence log1592 – calls to Jay’s residence – and the Chancery occurrence log for 30 August 1997.
If the embassy had prior knowledge of the Alma Tunnel crash, it is possible the records of phone calls received prior to 12.23 a.m. on 31 August 1997 could have shed light on it.
The fact that these records have never been seen by any investigation – and particularly the inquest – raises serious questions about the will of the investigators, including Scott Baker, to get to the bottom of what happened in Paris on the weekend of 30-31 August 1997.
Stephen Donnelly, British Vice Consul, Paris: 22 Sep 2005 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 126.25:
“I have been asked whether I made notes that day and whether I still have them. I made some notes at the time of who I spoke to, when and the conversation. These notes were made at the time on some scrap paper and at the end of the day I wrote them up cleanly. I remember taking my notes into the office on the following Monday [September 1], but I do not know where they are now. I certainly don’t remember seeing them in the consular case file. I gave them to Keith Moss at the time as he was going to do a report of everything that happened. I am sure that he gave the notes back to me and the normal procedure would be that they would be put into the registration office for filing into the consular file.1593 I do not know what has happened to them, but I definitely did not destroy them.”
Comment: Where are Stephen Donnelly’s notes?
No one has said.
Michael Jay: 13 Dec 05 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“All telegrams from the British Embassy in Paris went out under my name, unless I was absent from the country or on holiday in which case they went out under the name of my Deputy, who was Stephen Howarth. I would have seen all telegrams of importance before they were sent, and I would have drafted some of them, though my degree of input would vary. The more routine telegrams, although issued under my name, may well have been sent out under the authority of another officer in the Embassy.”1594
Nicholas Gargan, British Police Liaison with French Investigation, Paris: 13 Dec 07: 14.1:
Mansfield: Q. You kept something called the “day book”, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. And the day book, what did that record? Just that something happened or more detail than that?
A. My day book did not record a great deal of detail because our standard practice in the Embassy would be that we would conduct our correspondence back to the UK in the form of intelligence logs and messages. There is no point putting something in a day book and just immediately then to put it into a log. So the record would be the log.
How involved was the British ambassador to France, Michael Jay, in the assassination of Princess Diana?
Michael Jay, British Ambassador to France, 1996-2001, Paris: 11 Feb 08: 96.13:
Burnett: Q. Do you, as Ambassador, have overall responsibility for [MI6 and MI5] and their actions and activities?
A. Yes, as Ambassador I have overall responsibility for the conduct and activities of all sections, all departments of the Embassy, including the members of MI6, yes.
…. Q. How, as Ambassador, were you kept informed of the activities of the SIS/MI6 section in the Embassy?
A. I would hold regular meetings with the head of the [MI6] section, as I would do with the heads of other sections of the Embassy. He would keep me informed about the main work that they were doing and he would tell me of any particular operations that might be difficult or sensitive or raise in particular press interest. So I would have a general oversight of the operations.
Q. Would you expect, as ambassador, to be kept informed of particular significant activities of the MI6 section or station, whatever one calls it?
A. I would if there was something which the head of the section, the head of the MI6 section, believed was important enough to bring to my attention. I would not expect him to be telling me everything he got up to, that would be wrong, but I would expect him to tell me about a major activity or a major operation, in particular one that was likely to lead or might lead to some kind of public interest.
At 99.13: Q. You have told us that you and Lady Jay were in Paris that weekend.
A. Yes.
Q. In a way that made you quite rare birds, we infer, because Paris seems to be pretty much deserted in August by senior officials of any sort.
A. They come back in the last week of August and we had come back in the last week of August in order to prepare for what seemed likely to be a busy autumn.
Q. Did you have any guests staying with you that weekend?
A. Yes, we did. We had my wife’s father and his partner staying with us.
Q. Now on 30th August itself, the Saturday, are you able to tell us what you were doing during the day and particularly in the evening?
A. I believe that I was working on papers that morning, either in the residence or in the Embassy next door. In the afternoon we took my wife’s father and her1595 partner to the bateau-mouche, which are those boats which go along the Seine, where they went on a river trip, and then we picked them up when they came back. As I recall, we had supper together in the residence that evening.
Q. Just the four of you?
A. Just the four of us.
Q. Then can you remember when you went to bed? You have told us that the call you received in the early hours of the morning, that you were in bed.
A. No, I remember when we woke up. I do not remember when we went to bed.
Q. During the course of the day, that is to say the Saturday, had you had any official engagements of any sort?
A. No, not as far as I remember.
Q. With your father-in-law and his partner staying, would you have expected to organise official engagements?
A. No, this was at the very end of the holiday season. This was a weekend. This was a weekend that we would have hoped to have been able to spend with them, showing them something of Paris, before the work really started the following week.
Q. Similarly, for the Sunday, Sunday the 31st, before anyone knew the crash had happened, had you any official engagements planned for that day?
A. No, we had no official engagements, no.
Comment: Michael Jay’s role is a significant issue, because he has been named as a possible suspect in the post-crash cover-up.
As we have come to expect in this case, there is no alibi checking, and witness evidence – if the witness is part of the Establishment – is taken as gospel truth.
Jay states: “This was a weekend that we would have hoped to have been able to spend with them1596, showing them something of Paris”.
Burnett had earlier asked: “Now on 30th August itself, the Saturday, are you able to tell us what you were doing…?” Jay had replied: “I believe that I was working on papers that morning…. In the afternoon we took my wife’s father and [his] partner to the bateau-mouche … and then we picked them up when they came back. As I recall, we had supper together in the residence that evening.”
One could argue there is a conflict there. The Jays have visitors and he said: “we would have hoped to have been able to spend [time] with them, showing them something of Paris”.
But instead, on the full day of the weekend before the crash1597 – after being asked to describe his activities – Jay has related “working on papers”, dropping the visitors off and later picking them up, and sharing “supper together in the residence”.
So it turns out that none of the day’s activities – as described by Jay – included “[spending time] with them, showing them something of Paris”.
Why is this?
Did Jay have embassy-related engagements preventing him from spending time with his visiting relatives?
Burnett asked Jay: “During the course of the … Saturday, had you had any official engagements of any sort?” Jay: “No, not as far as I remember.”
So what was Jay doing on that Saturday?
This evidence certainly opens the window to the possibility Jay had deliberately kept his time free to deal with issues relating to a planned Paris assassination.
Jay also stated that he “had no official engagements” on the Sunday.
The question has to be asked: Did Michael Jay deliberately ensure ahead of time that the weekend of 30-31 August 1997 was clear?
At the inquest Michael Jay’s diary for 31 August 1997 was read out15981599, but the question is: Why wasn’t his diary for the previous day – August 30 – also read out?1600
I suggest that it would be difficult to comprehend that MI6 could plan and conduct an operation of this size and complexity – the assassination of Princess Diana by orchestrated car crash – from inside the embassy, under the nose of Michael Jay, without him being aware or possibly involved.
Part 4 has already shown that Jay was involved in the cover-up and was shown to have lied in his evidence to protect the Queen.1601
There is a possibility Jay was also involved in pre-crash activities – possibly in a diplomatic role involving contacts between high-level French figures and the UK. Earlier volumes (and this one) have shown that this assassination – and the ensuing cover-up – could not have been successful without collusion between British and French authorities.
Michael Jay: 13 Dec 05 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“I have been asked whether I received any instructions on 31/08/1997 to carry out a particular course of action and if so, from whom and what exactly it was I was requested to do. The decisions which were taken on 31/08/1997 with regard to the death of the Princess of Wales and my part in the events that followed, including the courses of action that I took and why, are set out in the Reports and Records to which I have already referred. I do not believe that there was any significant course of action that I took on 31/08/1997 that is not described and explained in those Reports and Records.”1602
Comment: Michael Jay was asked a specific question: Did he receive “any instructions on 31/08/1997 to carry out a particular course of action and if so, from whom and what exactly it was [he] was requested to do?”
He did not answer this question.
Instead Jay pointed to “reports and records” that were withheld from the jury investigating the deaths of the people to whom the “decisions” and “courses of action” relate to.16031604
Why were they withheld?
The failure to provide key evidence – Jay’s August 30 diary, the above “reports and records”, the residence occurrence log for August 30-31 – raises troubling concerns about the pre and post-crash activities of the British ambassador to France, Michael Jay.
There is conflicting evidence over where Robert Fellowes, Diana’s brother-in-law, was on the night of the crash. Allegations have been made that he was present at the British embassy in Paris.
Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi’s Father, UK: 18 Feb 08: 73.12:
Burnett: Q. Now, in a letter1607 to Lord Stevens, you said this: “At a meeting [your] officers were told of information which I believed to be authentic concerning Lord Fellowes. It is said that he was present at the British Embassy in Paris at 11 pm on 30th August 1997…. Robert Fellowes commandeered the communications centre at the British Embassy and sent messages to GCHQ. I hope that firm evidence of his involvement can be provided, but in the meantime I hope that you will see fit to question him as to this important break-through.” Right?
A. That is right.
….Q. Is that still your belief, that Lord Fellowes was in Paris that night?
A. Yes. How can I prove? The Embassy must have documents. Can you discover the documents in the Embassy? I am certain there is some proofs.
Q. My question, Mr Al Fayed, was whether it was still your belief, and I think from the answer you have given, the answer is in fact yes, it is still your belief?
A. I have been told that. I have been told that by a very, very responsible person who knows exactly what happened.
Sue Reid, Investigations Editor, Daily Mail: 17 Jun 06 Article: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Mr X, was based at the British Embassy in Paris and formerly worked for the Foreign Office in London…. Mr X is said to be a middle-aged, English wireless operator at the [British] Embassy. He came on duty in the early evening of August 30, expecting his night shift to be routine. From his office in the communications room, encrypted phone calls and messages were sent from the embassy via UK listening stations to Downing Street, the heads of Whitehall departments and, if necessary, senior aides of the Royal Family.
“Mr X was proud of his job and is an ardent royalist. However, something unexpected happened that night which he found deeply troubling. He says that just before midnight … two well-spoken men burst through the door of the communications room. Described as ‘public school’, they brusquely ordered Mr X to leave his post and not to return until [he is] told. Mr X kept silent about this … until 2000 because he had signed the Official Secrets Act. But then, apparently, he named one of the men to a third party…. He explained: ‘It was that bastard Fellowes. He turfed me out of my own office. He was in Paris the night Diana died.’
“[Mr X’s] story … is being actively investigated by Lord Stevens and his [Paget] team.
“The Mail understands that in an initial conversation with the Diana squad, Lord Fellowes has said he was enjoying a break at his Norfolk estate with his wife, Diana’s sister, Lady Jane Fellowes. He has dismissed the claim he was in Paris that weekend or any part of the night Diana died.”1608
Robert Fellowes, Queen’s Private Secretary, 1990-99, UK: 12 Feb 08: 2.21:
Burnett: Q. It had been suggested, particularly in a letter from Mr Al Fayed, that it was said that you had been present in the British Embassy at 11 o’clock in the evening on 30th August 1997 and commandeered the communications centre to send messages to GCHQ. In other words, it was being suggested that you were intimately concerned in the murder of your sister-in-law. You understand that that was the allegation?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in Paris on that evening?
A. No.
Q. Both you and your family provided considerable detail to the police of your precise whereabouts in Norfolk, I think, and descriptions of what you were doing.
A. We were in Norfolk that evening. We had people to stay. We went to an entertainment by Mr John Mortimer in Burnham Market Church.
Michael Jay, British Ambassador to France, 1996-2001, Paris: 11 Feb 08: 112.24:
Burnett: Q. It has also been suggested that Lord Fellowes, who was, at the time, the Queen‘s private secretary and also the brother-in-law of the Princess of Wales, was in Paris on the night of 30th August and had commandeered an operations room in the Embassy essentially to oversee and organise the murder of his sister-in-law. Was Lord Fellowes in Paris?
A. No, he was not.
Paget Report, p606:
“Mohamed Al Fayed in a letter to Lord Stevens, February 21 2006: “It is said that Robert Fellowes was present at the British Embassy in Paris at 11 p.m. on 30 August 1997…. Robert Fellowes commandeered the communications centre at the British Embassy and sent messages to GCHQ.”
Paget Report, p622: Jury Didn’t Hear:
Paget reply to Mohamed Al Fayed’s claim: “There is no evidence to support this claim. All of the evidence shows that Lord Robert Fellowes was at home in England with his family, including his wife, Lady Jane Fellowes, on Saturday night and Sunday morning. Lady Jane Fellowes was the sister of the Princess of Wales. Lord Fellowes was with friends in his local village in England on the night of Saturday 30 August 1997. This information has been confirmed to Operation Paget officers. The two Security Officers on duty at the British Embassy in Paris on the night of Saturday 30 August 1997 have provided statements confirming that nothing like this could happen or did happen at the Embassy. There is no supporting evidence at all to substantiate anything to do with this claim.”
George Younes, British Embassy Security Officer, Paris: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 110.9:
“On Saturday 30th August 1997, Simon Jackson and I were the only two people to be working at the British Embassy. Prior to the incident at the Alma Tunnel I had walked around the Chancery for one of the routine security checks, but I do not recall the time. I can however confirm that there was no one else present in the Chancery offices. Furthermore, if there had been anyone working in the offices, they would have been registered at the security desk.”
Comment: This comes across as an incredible allegation – that Robert Fellowes was present in the communications room of the British embassy late at night on 30 August 1997.
It also should have been a simple allegation for either Operation Paget or Scott Baker to dispel – if it is untrue.
All Baker had to do was ensure that two simple things occurred:
The fact that neither of these actions were taken – by either Paget or Baker – raises serious concerns about what Fellowes, the British authorities, or both, have to hide.
The most detailed allegation is made in a June 2006 Daily Mail article based on witness evidence provided to the newspaper’s respected investigations editor, Sue Reid. It is amazing that neither Sue Reid nor the Daily Mail are mentioned in either the Paget account or the details provided by lawyer, Ian Burnett, at the inquest.1609
The focus in the Paget Report and at the inquest was on a claim made four months earlier1610 to Operation Paget by Mohamed Al Fayed. Mohamed told the inquest: “I have been told that by a very, very responsible person who knows exactly what happened.”
Why wasn’t Mohamed asked about the source of the information?1611
It appears that neither Paget nor Burnett asked him – even though both were presumed to be carrying out thorough investigations into the circumstances of the deaths.1612
Mohamed stated: “The Embassy must have documents”. And I suggest that is correct – see earlier.1613 Next Mohamed asks the inquest lawyer, Ian Burnett: “Can you discover the documents in the Embassy?”
Burnett ignores this, and reiterates his question, even though he was aware Mohamed had already answered it.1614
The embassy occurrence log for 30 August 1997 is a key part of this and until those records are made public, significant questions will remain about what went on in the embassy on the night of 30-31 August 1997.
Paget – which only provides a third person description of evidence – appears to give two different alibis for Robert Fellowes for the night of 30-31 August 1997:
Paget’s first alibi is “at home … with his family” and the second is “with friends in his local village”.
So, one with his family, then another one, with his friends.
Fellowes also gave an alibi at the inquest: “We were in Norfolk that evening. We had people to stay. We went to an entertainment by Mr John Mortimer in Burnham Market Church.”
Fellowes doesn’t explain who “we” are. The jury have not been told who the “people to stay” were. The timing of the Mortimer performance is not provided.
At the time, Fellowes – when he wasn’t in London – was based at his home in Snettisham. So his “local village” was Snettisham, not Burnham Market, which was about a 23 km drive away.
This indicates that Fellowes has provided conflicting alibis – his local village, Snettisham, to Paget, and Burnham Market to the inquest.
There is absolutely no witness support provided for anything Fellowes has said to either Paget or the inquest.
This person, Robert Fellowes, is a named suspect in the murder of his sister-in-law. An independent witness has described this suspect as a person the sister-in-law “feared”.1615
Yet this is the best that the suspect and the investigators can come up with for an alibi – in fact, three different alibis, only one of which is heard by the jury.
Why is this?
Why is Fellowes – or the British police – not able to come straight out and say precisely where Fellowes was, with the timings, and back it up with sworn witness statements?
Burnett said to Fellowes – not a question – “Both you and your family provided considerable detail to the police of your precise whereabouts in Norfolk, I think, and descriptions of what you were doing.”
Where is this “considerable detail”?
Who has seen it?1616 The Operation Paget officers?1617
If so, why have they kept it to themselves? What is so secretive about the activities and movements of Robert Fellowes on the night his sister-in-law died?1618
If Fellowes is innocent, then there should be no reason for any secrecy.
In summary, there are two main problems with Robert Fellowes’ alibis: a) they come across as indefinite, confusing and conflicting; b) nothing he or Paget says is supported by any witness or documentary evidence – no supporting evidence at all.
Michael Jay, British Ambassador to France, 1996-2001, Paris: 11 Feb 08: 113.14:
Mansfield: Q. That particular night and day – that is the Saturday and the Sunday – particularly on the Saturday, was there a communications room or centre operative in the Embassy? Can you help?
A. The normal arrangements were that the Embassy’s communications centre would be open on the Saturday morning when traffic used to come in from the Foreign Office, and then it would not open again normally – I think I am right in saying – until Monday morning, unless there was a particular reason to expect traffic to come in, in which case there would be a telephone call and then the communications centre would be opened to receive whatever traffic was expected. I think that is the position.
Q. Is a log kept at the Embassy of incoming communications and outgoing communications and other occurrences, rather like an occurrence book in fact?
A. Certainly as far as telegrams and electronic communications, yes, there would be records kept of those telegrams going in and going out.
Comment: Mansfield asked Jay a specific question: “That particular night and day … particularly on the Saturday, was there a communications … centre operative in the Embassy?”
This question followed straight after the above question from Burnett to Jay about Robert Fellowes.1619
The question was about “that particular night and day”, but Jay ignored that and answered it generally – “the normal arrangements were….”
The point is of course that this was hardly a “normal” weekend – and one of the key issues is whether this was treated as a normal weekend in the British embassy pre-crash, i.e. on the Saturday. Or was the embassy in a state of alert?
Did Jay shift his answer away from “that particular night and day” to “the normal arrangements” because the real answer would not have been in the interests of the Establishment?
Jay says: “the Embassy’s communications centre would be open on the Saturday morning … and then it would not open again normally … until Monday morning, unless there was a particular reason”.
This appears to conflict with George Younes: “I was on duty that night [of the crash] with another colleague whose name is Mr Simon Jackson. I was on the Chancery desk … where all the Embassy offices are situated, whereas Simon Jackson was working in the Residence Lodge next door, where the Ambassador lives…. Out of hours incoming calls are all routed to the Chancery and Residence desk simultaneously on the same phone line, but it is the responsibility of the Chancery desk to answer all incoming calls.”16201621
Given that Jay worked in the Chancery and lived in the Residence for five years, it seems unbelievable that he would be unaware that there were people employed overnight who dealt with out-of-hours embassy communications.
Next Mansfield asked: “Is a log kept at the Embassy of … communications … rather like an occurrence book in fact?”
We have already seen the Younes account of an occurrence log recording phone calls, and it appears that Mansfield – who would have had a copy of Younes’ statement1622 – may have been basing his question on that.
It’s interesting that when Jay answers he avoids mentioning that phone calls – which played a very significant role on the night of the crash1623 – were recorded in the occurrence log. In fact, Jay limits the keeping of records to “telegrams and electronic communications” – “certainly as far as telegrams and electronic communications, yes, there would be records kept of those telegrams going in and going out”.16241625
The question is: Why is Jay so evasive and dishonest in his answering?
Burnett asked Jay: “Was Lord Fellowes in Paris?” Jay was very definite: “No, he was not.”
Jay tells us nothing about how he knows this – and he is not asked. Is this knowledge Jay has acquired from other witnesses who were at the embassy, or was Jay there at the embassy himself?
The earlier evidence from Jay is that he was asleep – “I was woken at my residence which adjoins the Embassy at about 1.45 a.m.”
George Younes has stated: “Simon Jackson and I were the only two people to be working at the British Embassy”. Although I believe Younes was generally a helpful witness, he has already been shown to have lied – possibly following instructions – regarding the Massoni phone call. It is possible Younes has been asked to declare there were no other witnesses.
Simon Jackson has never been interviewed by any investigation and was not heard from at the inquest.
Although the concept of Robert Fellowes in the British embassy on the night of the crash initially sounds incredible, there are some factors that give it some credibility:
It has been claimed that all except one of the staff in the British embassy had no knowledge of Princess Diana’s presence in the French capital, until after the crash had occurred.
Charles Ritchie, Military Attaché British Embassy, Paris: 12 Feb 08: 142.10:
Burnett: Q. Did your wife approach one of the motorcyclists to inquire, to find out what was going on [outside the Ritz Hotel]?
A. That is correct. My wife went up to one of the paparazzi on a motor bicycle and asked who it was who was in the hotel and she was informed, “It is your Lady Di and Mr Fayed”.
Q. By now it was five to midnight?
A. It was almost exactly five to midnight.
Q. And this was information that your wife passed on to you?
A. That is correct.
Q. What was your reaction to being told that the Princess of Wales was in Paris?
A. One of great surprise. I had no idea that the Princess was in Paris.
….Q. And so you would not, as military attaché, expect to be informed of an unofficial visit?
A. No, sir. We would not be informed of an unofficial visit….
Q. So, having discovered, in the way that you have described, that the Princess of Wales was in the Ritz and in Paris, did you linger in the Place Vendôme, or what did you do?
A. For a short while I did. I had no idea that the Princess was in Paris. For all I knew, it might have been that the Embassy had been told….
….Q. So did you judge that there was anything for you to do at five to midnight on that Saturday night?
A. There was nothing much I could do at five to midnight on Saturday night, but I took a good look at what was there and it appeared to me that there was – I said there was a black UK-registered Range Rover at the front, a couple of very professional-looking people standing beside it, another vehicle behind. It all looked to be perfectly in order as far as I could see.
Q. Was it your intention to mention it to the Ambassador the following morning?
A. I actually said my intention was to ring the Ambassador at half past eight in the morning and tell him, “Sir, I happened to be passing and were we aware that Princess Diana and Mr Al Fayed are in Paris, and if not, they are”.
Michael Jay, British Ambassador to France, 1996-2001, Paris: 11 Feb 08: 89.18:
Burnett: Q. First, when did you first become aware of the presence in Paris of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed?
A. When I was telephoned by Keith Moss, the Consul General, to tell me about the accident, which I think was at about quarter to two or thereabouts on the morning of the 31st.
Q. Can we take it from that that you and your wife were in Paris at the time?
A. Yes, we were. We were asleep.
…. Q. Did you cause inquiries to be made within the Embassy as to whether anyone was aware that Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales were in Paris on 30th August?
A. Yes, I did. I had been told by the French authorities that on that day, on the day of the accident or the day following it, they were unaware of the Princess’s presence, but I then read reports in the newspapers that some people – claiming that some of the French authorities were aware. So I then asked my staff to check with all the French authorities concerned to check that nobody was aware and I received assurances from them that nobody among the French authorities was aware of her presence.1629
Q. And neither was anyone in the Embassy?
A. And nor was anyone in the Embassy.
Michael Jay: 31 Aug 97 Diary read out 11 Feb 08: 105.20:
“None of us here knew the Princess was in Paris and nor did the French authorities.”
Michael Jay: 11 Feb 08: 153.9:
“I certainly remember, by the end of that day, as I said in the diary entry that I read out a little while ago, I was aware that the French were not aware of the visit….”
Michael Jay: 13 Dec 05 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“I have been asked when I was first aware of the presence of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed in Paris on 30/08/1997. I had no knowledge that the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were in Paris until I was woken at my residence which adjoins the Embassy at about 1.45am in the morning of Sunday 31/08/1997. I received two telephone calls….
“The Embassy’s lack of advance knowledge was confirmed to the French Inquiry. In January 1999, Mr Paul Johnston, at the time Second Secretary (Political) at the Embassy, wrote to M Hervé Stéphan, the Juge d’Instruction investigating the case for the French authorities, and told him that: - ‘The Embassy was not aware that the Princess of Wales was in Paris until we were notified of the accident early on 31st August. The Princess arrived in Paris from Italy on the afternoon of 30th August. She was travelling as a private citizen. In that capacity, she was not obliged to inform the British Government about her travel plans. Nor would she normally have received protection unless she asked for it. Following her divorce, the Princess had not wanted to have protection except for high profile public engagements. On this occasion, a private visit, she did not ask for protection. The Al Fayeds had their own security arrangements.’
“I am satisfied that this sets out the true position….
“At a later stage the Military Attaché to the Embassy, Brigadier Charles Ritchie, told me that he had learnt that the Princess of Wales was in Paris when he observed a crowd outside the Ritz Hotel in the Place Vendôme shortly before midnight on Saturday 30/08/1997. I do not recollect at what point he told me this.”1630
Keith Moss, British Consul General, Paris: 22 Nov 07: 8.15:
Hough: Q. Before the crash occurred, were you aware that the Princess of Wales and Mr Al Fayed were in Paris?
A. No, not at all.
Keith Moss: 22 Oct 04 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Prior to the incident that led to the deaths of Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales, I had not been aware that they were in France. I only became aware of their presence in Paris, when I received a telephone call from the Embassy Duty Officer.”16311632
Nicholas Gargan, British Police Liaison with French Investigation, Paris: 13 Dec 07: 4.18:
Hilliard: Q. 31st August of 1997. On the Sunday, I think you were telephoned by your brother at about 9 o’clock in the morning. Is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. Did he tell you that the Princess of Wales had died in an incident in Paris overnight?
A. He did indeed. That was why he rang me.
…. Q. Prior to hearing what you did from your brother on the 31st, had you had any knowledge before that that the Princess of Wales was in Paris?
A. No.
George Younes, British Embassy Security Officer, Paris: 15 Aug 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 116.23:
“I have been asked if I was aware that Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were in Paris prior to receiving the call from Mr Massoni. I was not aware that she was in Paris and I was surprised.”
Stephen Donnelly, British Vice Consul, Paris: 22 Sep 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 120.17:
“On the morning of Sunday 31st August at about 8.15 am to 8.20 am, I received a telephone call at my home … from the Consul General, Keith Moss. I was in bed when I got the call. Keith Moss said, ‘Stephen, it’s Keith’. I said ‘Hello Keith’, to which he said ‘Diana is dead’, to which my response was ‘Diana who?’ He then told me it was Princess Diana and I was very shocked…. It was not until I received the telephone call from Keith Moss that morning that I became aware that Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were in Paris, let alone France.”
Mr 4 aka Eugene Curley, MI6 Head in France. British Embassy, Paris: 29 Feb 08: 41.13:
Burnett: Q. Were you aware that the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed were in Paris that weekend, before the crash occurred?
A. No, I was not.
Mr 6 aka Richard Spearman, MI6 Officer. British Embassy, Paris: 29 Feb 08: 54.17:
Burnett: Q. Did you know, before they came to Paris, that they were coming to Paris?
A. The first time I was aware of it was on the Sunday morning, when I learned of the crash.
Ms 1, MI6 Officer. British Embassy, Paris: 12 Jan 05 Statement read out 29 Feb 08: 36.8:
“On Sunday morning, one of the Embassy locally employed staff … telephoned my home to confirm arrangements for a pre-arranged barbecue at his country home. He spoke to my husband and during that conversation he told my husband of the crash involving Diana. This was the first I knew of the crash or the presence of Diana and Dodi Al Fayed in Paris. I had had no indication that they may be coming to the city.”
Mr 5, MI6 Officer. British Embassy, Paris: 13 Jan 05 Statement read out 29 Feb 08: 37.25:
“I am a light sleeper and often sleep with the radio on. On that night I recall listening to BBC5 Live and at about 2 or 3 am I first heard reports of the crash involving Princess Diana. … I had no knowledge of her visit to Paris until I heard it on the radio, as I have already stated.”
Paul Johnston, Second Secretary, British Embassy: Paget Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Paul Johnston stated he first became aware that the Princess of Wales was in Paris, when he heard news of the crash on the Today radio programme whilst staying at a friend’s house in Normandy.”1633
Paul Johnston: 16 Dec 98 Letter to Hervé Stéphan and Marie-Christine Devidal:
“Nobody in the British Embassy in Paris was aware of the Princess of Wales’ trip to France, as it was a strictly private visit. The first person to have any knowledge of it was the duty officer, who received the call from the police just after the accident.”16341635
Steven Gunner, Assistant Air Attaché, British Embassy:
“The first I heard of the death of Princess Diana was on the BBC Radio News early on Sunday morning.”1636
Keith Shannon: Paget Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Keith Shannon stated that he first became aware of the crash at just after 1 a.m. on 31 August 1997 when he was woken by a telephone call from George Younes, the Security Officer at the Embassy. This call was followed by a second call from Philippe Massoni, the Préfet de Police of Paris … who Keith Shannon understood to be at the scene of the crash. These calls were his first knowledge of the Princess of Wales’ presence in Paris.”1637
Timothy Livesey, Embassy Press Attaché: Paget Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Timothy Livesey stated he was not aware of the Princess of Wales’ presence in Paris before the crash.”1638
Paget Report, p804: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Staff at the British Embassy, Paris were not informed of the visit of the Princess of Wales. They all stated that they personally had no prior knowledge of the Princess of Wales’ visit and also believed that the British Embassy had no prior knowledge.”
Paget Report, p620: Jury Didn’t Hear:
“Neither the FCO in London, nor the British Embassy or Consulate in Paris, with the exception of Brigadier Charles Ritchie, were aware of the presence of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed in Paris until the Embassy Security Officer was notified at somewhere between around 12.50 a.m. and 1.10 a.m. on Sunday 31 August 1997.”
Frank Klein, President, Ritz Hotel, Paris: 29 Nov 07: 99.24:
Mansfield: Q. Because of the press, because we are now into a situation where there is another visit to the South of France by Princess Diana and Dodi and the yacht Jonikal, the second visit, do you remember, was also in the press every day?
A. That is right.
Q. So there would not have been anybody in France, unless they had their eyes shut, that would not have known that he was there with Princess Diana.
A. Absolutely.
Claude Roulet, Assistant President, Ritz Hotel, Paris: 5 Dec 07: 110.23:
Mansfield: Q. Would it be fair to say that the relationship by this stage, that is the last week of August – the relationship between Dodi and the Princess of Wales was extremely well known, was it not?
A. Yes. All the newspapers spoke about it.
Q. Virtually every day?
A. Yes.
Comment: The general witness evidence is that all embassy employees – bar two, Charles Ritchie and Steven Gunner1639 – first learned that Princess Diana was in France when they heard about the crash on Sunday, 31 August 1997.
Ritchie has stated that he became aware of Diana and Dodi’s presence in Paris at “almost exactly five [minutes] to midnight” on 30 August 1997 – see above.
Paget has claimed that “the British Embassy [and] Consulate in Paris, with the exception of Brigadier Charles Ritchie, were [not] aware of the presence of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed in Paris [until] … around 12.50 a.m. and 1.10 a.m. on Sunday”.
There are about 40 diplomatic staff in the British embassy1640, not including security and other service staff like Younes.
How many of these staff did Paget interview?
Paget states: “Operation Paget has interviewed staff at the British Embassy who had a role in the events after the crash.”16411642
I suggest this strategy is fundamentally flawed … or very lazy investigation.
I believe it is common sense that there is no connection between pre-crash knowledge of Diana’s presence in Paris and an employee having “a role in the events after the crash”.
So we effectively have a situation where Paget has – by its own admission – not interviewed all embassy employees who could have known Diana was in Paris on 30 August 1997.
Regarding the knowledge of Diana’s presence, the Paget Report includes the statement accounts of nine embassy staff – Jay, Moss, Ritchie, Shannon, Donnelly, Livesey, Gunner, Johnston and Younes.1643
Of those nine, Paget only provides the first person evidence of one – Steven Gunner. The other accounts are all Paget descriptions of excerpts of their statements with Scotland Yard.1644
Gunner told Paget: “The first I heard of the death of Princess Diana was … early on Sunday morning.” That is not saying that he was unaware of the presence of Diana in Paris – it is confirmation of when he found out about Diana’s death.
The only embassy employee witness whose original words Paget published1645 is Steven Gunner. But Gunner has not said what Paget has claimed he said.
Gunner said he first heard of Diana’s death on Sunday morning – not her presence in Paris. This then leaves open the possibility that Gunner could have been aware of Diana’s presence in Paris at some point prior to the crash.
Although Paget did not provide the original words of any other witness statements, some of those have since been published, either through the inquest or The Documents book: Michael Jay, Keith Moss, Stephen Donnelly and George Younes.1646
Those four people have all stated that the first they heard of Diana’s presence in Paris was when they heard about the Alma Tunnel crash – see above.
The statements of Ritchie, Shannon, Livesey and Johnston have never been published – and of those, only Ritchie was heard at the inquest. Ritchie admitted that he became aware of Diana’s presence in Paris about half an hour before the crash – see above.
Paget expects us to rely on them providing a truthful description of evidence for the accounts of Keith Shannon, Tim Livesey and Paul Johnston. Those accounts suggest that Shannon, Livesey and Johnston were all unaware of Diana’s presence before the crash.
Nicholas Gargan was also cross-examined at the inquest and he said the same.
Paget says that the police took statements from all MI6 staff in the Paris embassy. The statements of Ms 1 and Mr 5 were read out at the inquest and Mr 6 and Mr 4 were both cross-examined.
Those four MI6 employees claim that pre-crash they were also unaware of Diana’s presence in Paris.1647
Out of the approximately 40 diplomatic staff in the embassy at the time of the crash, Paget has obtained and allowed to be declared evidence on this issue from just 12 – Jay, Moss, Ritchie, Shannon, Donnelly, Livesey, Gunner, Johnston, Spearman, Ms 1, Mr 5 and Mr 4.
This means that there are up to 28 embassy diplomatic staff that Paget apparently never interviewed or took statements from.1648
In turn, this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Paget has dishonestly claimed:
The reality is that Paget cannot honestly make these claims because:
The general thrust of this evidence appears to be an attempt to distance the British embassy staff from involvement in the orchestration of the Alma crash. If the Paris embassy staff had no awareness that Diana and Dodi were even in France, then how could they possibly have been involved in an assassination plot to remove them in a Paris car crash?
The evidence from embassy employees is very similar to that claimed by the French authorities (see Part 3) – they had no knowledge that Princess Diana was in France.
Is this possible?
The question is: When Princess Diana’s plane touched down in Paris at 3.20 p.m. on that warm Saturday afternoon, was there suddenly a media blackout?
We know the paparazzi were present – see Part 1 – and there is famous video footage of that arrival.
Are we seriously expected to believe that the video footage and paparazzi photos of Diana and Dodi arriving in Paris didn’t make the television evening news on 30 August 1997? Did the French media carry daily reports of Diana’s movements, but as soon as she arrived in the capital, they suddenly stopped reporting it?
Was the “sea of people”1649 present outside the Ritz Hotel at 10 p.m. – described in Part 1 – aware that Diana was in town, but none of the 40 plus British embassy employees were?1650
I suggest that the general British embassy employee evidence that was taken – and the Paget claims1651 – don’t really add up.
On Sunday 31 August 1997 Michael Jay wrote in his diary: “None of us here knew the Princess was in Paris and nor did the French authorities.”16521653
One question that should be asked is: Why did Michael Jay write this?
Is there a connection between knowledge within the British embassy of Diana’s Paris visit and the ensuing crash?
There would appear to be two major reasons why this information could have – at that time – seemed important enough to record:
One could argue that Jay put this in because there may have been an expectation for the British or French to provide security for Princess Diana after her arrival in Paris. The claim that no one knew Diana was there would then release the authorities from any security responsibility.
Paul Johnston wrote to Stéphan in January 1999: “Following her divorce1654, the Princess had not wanted to have protection except for high profile public engagements. On this occasion, a private visit, she did not ask for protection.”1655
This indicates that there was an awareness in the embassy that Diana “had not wanted to have protection” – at least not provided by the UK authorities.
Even if Diana had sought official UK security protection for this trip to France, I suggest it wouldn’t have been provided by the embassy, but by the UK police, possibly the Royalty Protection division.16561657
So there does not appear to be any logical basis for Michael Jay, or his Paris embassy staff, to have had concerns about providing security protection for Princess Diana in France.
If Michael Jay knew that Diana and Dodi had been deliberately eliminated, then I suggest that could have led him to leave documentary evidence that the embassy was not involved.
A diary entry along the lines of: “None of us here knew the Princess was in Paris”, could suffice.1658
As discussed earlier, this appears to be a case of excessive distancing. It should have been enough for the British embassy not to have received any notification of the visit.1659 But Jay – and subsequently other embassy officials – took it an incredible step further, by claiming no knowledge of Diana’s presence, even though she had been in Paris for around nine hours by midnight on 30 August 1997.
I suggest that if the deaths of Diana and Dodi had been accidental then it would not have mattered whether the embassy staff knew Diana was present in Paris pre-crash. This issue of awareness of Diana’s presence only becomes significant if there is already evidence the crash was orchestrated. It has the effect of distancing anyone who was ignorant pre-crash of Diana’s presence, of involvement in the assassination.
Michael Jay has indicated that he spent time and embassy resources on the first day trying to establish people’s – both British and French – pre-crash levels of awareness of Diana’s presence. According to his evidence, Jay appears to have done this, while neglecting to spend time ensuring the protection of Princess Diana from an invasive French embalming, while she lay lifeless in the Paris hospital.1660
This indicates that Jay was more interested in distancing himself, the embassy and the French authorities from involvement in the crash, than in protecting the body of the dead princess.
Stephen Donnelly, British Vice Consul, Paris: 22 Sep 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 129.7:
“It is only recently when seeing Keith Moss‘ statement to DS Grater that I understood that the Princess of Wales had been embalmed.”
Comment: Why has Donnelly been given Moss’ statement to read before completing his account to Scotland Yard officers?
Operation Paget was the British police investigation intended to establish the truth regarding the circumstances of the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
How can the police establish the truth if they let witnesses read other witnesses’ statements? The whole idea of a police investigation is to get the accounts of the various witnesses and compare what each one says in an effort to establish the truth.
This is corrupt behaviour by the police, to allow witnesses to read other people’s statements. It is further evidence of a cover-up, in this case involving apparent collusion between embassy staff and the police.
Stephen Donnelly: 22 Sep 05 Statement read out 17 Dec 07: 121.6:
“I had not been on call at home that weekend. The on-call consular officer had been Gillian Storey, who normally worked in the visa section, but because I dealt with deaths of British citizens in France on a day-to-day basis, I had been informed. My first telephone call after I had finished speaking with Keith Moss was to Gillian Storey in order to inform her of these developments and to take her out of the loop and ask for all calls to be channelled through me, in order to keep her free to deal with all other consular matters. I have been shown a copy of a document marked ‘Telephone report of death by DS Grater’. This document appears to have been completed by Gillian Storey and records that I had called her at 8.30 am that morning. This is a standard form completed for the death of a British citizen in Paris.”
Comment: Why wasn’t the inquest jury provided with a copy of Gillian Storey’s report? Why wasn’t a statement taken from Storey?
This is another example of a sloppy investigation of these deaths – by both Paget and Scott Baker.
Once one realises that MI6 were heavily involved in the plot to assassinate Princess Diana1661, then it becomes logical – given that MI6 staff are based in embassies – that there had to be some involvement by staff in the British embassy in Paris.
The general claim by embassy and MI6 staff employed in Paris was that they were not involved – and indeed they could not have been, because they were completely unaware that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were in Paris, until they were notified after the crash.
This claim has been shown to lack credibility:
There is also an accumulation of evidence that indicates British embassy staff were involved in the assassination of Princess Diana:
As with MI6, a lot of the embassy evidence is circumstantial. There is however a substantial build-up, when all of the points are viewed together.
It becomes very clear that there is a major cover-up involving the evidence surrounding the British embassy in Paris. Embassy staff have lied on certain key issues. All the crucial documentation relating to the weekend of 30-31 August 1997 – including phone call logs and embassy reports – was withheld from the jury investigating the deaths of Diana and Dodi.
Most of the embassy statements taken by the police were not shown to the jury. People who should have been cross-examined – George Younes, Stephen Donnelly, Philippe Massoni, Keith Shannon, Timothy Livesey, Paul Johnston – were not.
Why?
Again the question is asked: Why do we see a cover-up if there is nothing to cover up?