Princess Diana’s death no accident? Lawyer breaks silence on ‘unlawful killing’

A lawyer appointed by Dodi Fayed’s father to prove Princess Diana’s “unlawful killing” has just broken his silence on the rumoured lovebirds’ death.

A top barrister from London, Michael Mansfield, finally broke his silence on the deaths of Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed.

For those unversed, Michael Mansfield represented Dodi Fayed’s father in the ‘unlawful killing case’ of his son.

He began by telling The Mirror that both cases can ‘still be re-opened’ if new insight comes forward and dished over the verdict that has been ‘lost over the years’.

He was quoted saying, “The idea that it’s purely and simply a road accident is not right. So I want to dispel that. The truth does come to the surface in the end, but somebody’s got to be looking for it in order for that to happen.”

“I do think that this is not a ‘case closed’ by any means. There’s much more to come out of this case in the long run, and it will surface somewhere.”

During the course of his interview, he also addressed the 2008 inquest and added, “When you ask people what was the jury’s verdict, they either don’t know or they say it was an accident. But accident was not the verdict. That is what the police and others would like to be remembered.”

“The coroner drafted five options for the jury… the first was unlawful killing originally related to the grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi.”

“We submitted that this did not arise on the evidence because the British police had traced and excluded all the paparazzi photographers from being proximate to the Mercedes when it approached and entered the tunnel.”

“Through photographs one diligent officer traced every single member of the paparazzi there outside the Ritz, and who may have followed the Mercedes towards the tunnel and he was able to establish at the inquests that none of them were within reach.”

“That is a very ­important point. The coroner accepted these submissions and the paparazzi were removed from this option. This was replaced with the words ‘following ­vehicles’. The jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, not accident, based on two components… the grossly negligent driving of the driver of the Mercedes and that of the ‘following ­vehicles’.”

“Questions still remain about whether this was a staged accident as the ­Princess herself had predicted. I’m anxious that it’s put straight. There were other vehicles inside the tunnel.”

“Most importantly a black saloon in front was slowing/blocking the Mercedes’ progress and a motorcycle behind was tailgating the Mercedes.