Diana Inquest: The Untold Story

Introduction

On Monday 7 April 2008, after 3½ days of deliberation, the jury at the royal inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, finally delivered their verdict. The 11 jurors sitting in London’s Royal Courts of Justice had patiently listened to six months of evidence given by 273 witnesses.

Their finding was that the tragic 1997 crash, which occurred in the Alma Tunnel in Paris, had been caused by unlawful killing – grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes. The royal coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, pointed out that unlawful killing equated to manslaughter.

The jury also stated that the crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of both the Mercedes and the following vehicles, and that the Mercedes driver’s judgement was impaired through alcohol.

This outcome from the inquest followed the French investigation which had finished in September 1999, and the British investigation (Operation Paget) which was completed with the publication of the Paget Report in December 2006. Both these investigations found that the Alma Tunnel crash had been caused by a drunk driver – Henri Paul – who was speeding.

Did this British inquest answer the many questions the worldwide public had regarding the circumstances of the famous couple’s deaths?

Did justice prevail? Or, was the inquest just another major event in a continuation of the cover-up of what truly happened in the Alma Tunnel on 31 August 1997?

One fact is certain: the over 7,000 pages of inquest transcripts and evidence now comprise the most detailed account that exists of the Paris crash and the circumstances and events surrounding it.

1: Henri Paul

Henri Paul, the acting Head of Security for the Ritz Hotel in Paris, was the driver of the Mercedes S280 that crashed in the Alma Tunnel. Throughout years of investigation, Henri Paul’s activities in the lead up to the crash have attracted a great deal of interest.

Coroner: Summing Up: 1 Apr 08: 88.22:

You may think that there are certain matters relating to Henri Paul that simply cannot be resolved with any clarity. The first is where he was and what he was doing between 7 and 10 p.m.; the second is where the money in his possession when he died had come from; and the third, where all the money had been coming from that had been going in fairly regularly to his bank account. You may have speculative ideas, but these are, I suggest, quite simply mysteries that cannot be solved on the evidence. In any event, are they mysteries that are relevant to any verdict?

Employment

Henri Paul joined the staff of the Paris Ritz Hotel in 1986. By 1997 he had been the deputy head of security for some years. Two months before the crash, when his boss Jean Hocquet left, Henri became acting head of security.

Ambition

Frank Klein, President, Ritz: 29 Nov 07: 47.11:⁷⁰

Burnett: Q. Is it right that Mr Paul was very content in his position and really did not wish to be the head of security?

A. That is right.

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 124.15:

Hough: Q. Did he have any ambition to become the head of security?

A. No, it has never been his ambition, and even with some humour, he was joking, saying that he much preferred not to be the head, because it was the head who had all the problems.

Work Relationships

Staff

Laurence Pujol, Henri Paul’s ex-girlfriend⁷¹, worked in the Ritz office from 1989 to 1992.

Laurence Pujol: 31 Jan 08: 175.10:

Hough: Q. You knew about his work at the Ritz. I think he had a very good relationship with the president, Mr Klein?

A. Yes.

Q. I think that some other members of staff, you say in your statement, resented that?

A. Yes.

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 125.14:

Hough: Q. I think you have said in your statements that he was quite close with Mr Klein, and that other members of the Ritz staff may even have resented how close a relationship he had with Mr Klein?

A. I confirm it.

At 132.4: Q. Was he prone to be angry?

A. I didn't see him often being angry.... It's rather with his relationship with the staff members of the Ritz, he had not a flat temper, he was quite strong.

Q. So he could be forceful at work?

A. Yes, indeed.

Henri’s relationships with Dodi Fayed and Claude Roulet will become relevant in the light of the events that transpired during the weekend of 30-31 August 1997.

Dodi Fayed

Frank Klein, President, Ritz: 29 Nov 07: 100.17:

Mansfield: Q. Of course given the length of time that [Henri Paul] has been employed at the Ritz, he too would know Dodi quite well, wouldn't he?

A. Yes.

Jean-François Musa, Owner, Étoile Limousines: 4 Dec 07: 86.15:

Henri Paul was much closer to Mr Al Fayed, so he was the one passing the orders.

At 98.23: Horwell: Q. Henri Paul liked to give the impression that he was within the close Al Fayed circle, didn't he?

A. Yes.

Q. And he cultivated this and played it up a bit, didn't he, in the way that he acted?

A. Yes, a bit.

Q. Henri Paul had the confidence of Dodi, didn't he?

A. Yes.

....Q. Henri Paul would obviously follow and obey whatever orders Dodi gave him, do you agree?

A. Yes,I think that they were quite close, even.

Claude Roulet, Vice-President, Ritz: 5 Dec 07: 34.21:

"He received also support directly from Mr Al Fayed⁷² when he had some special work to do for him, when he had special assistance to him or his family, because he was always present when someone of Mr Al Fayed's family was at the hotel, then he was requested to stay there and to look after security."

Jean Hocquet, Ritz Head of Security to June 1997: French Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

Although Mr Dodi Al Fayed did not shake hands with virtually anyone, he did do so with M. Paul. They got on well fairly quickly, each of them clearly knowing where they stood.⁷³

Trevor Rees-Jones, Dodi’s Bodyguard: 2000 The Bodyguard’s Story: Jury Didn’t Hear:

Describing Dodi’s arrival at Le Bourget airport (see later): Dodi walked directly up to [Henri Paul], shook hands and chatted. [Trevor said] ‘Obviously Dodi had a lot of faith in the man [Henri], the way he went to speak to him straight off’.’⁷⁴

Claude Roulet

Claude Roulet, Vice-President, Ritz: 5 Dec 07: 32.12:

Burnett: Q. You worked with Mr Paul for something over ten years, for eleven years?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it right that you knew him quite well?

A. Yes, we were friends.We met before he came and then we went out many times together for dinner. We were playing bowling together. So I knew him quite well.

Q. You knew him socially as well as simply professionally?

A. Yes..... He made me discover bowling.

Q. You also mentioned that you socialised together; you ate together and went to bars together?

A. Yes.

Personality

Frank Klein, President, Ritz: 29 Nov 07: 119.13:

Henri Paul was an easy man to talk to. He was more or less always in a good humour. He was very social. When he spoke to the staff, he was always in a good mood and always, how shall I say, very good attitude.

Jean-Claude Morere, Friend of Henri:⁷⁵ 17 Sep 97 Statement read out 13 Mar 08: 48.23:

He was completely different from the other [flight] trainees who were often under pressure in this kind of training, he was relaxed and always very humorous – he did not take himself at all seriously. Unlike the others, he didn't put himself forward at all.

Josiane Le Tellier, Owner of Le Champmeslé Lesbian Bar: 13 Mar 08: 92.23:

Keen: Q. What you actually told the French police on 5th September 1997 in your deposition was: I knew Mr Paul very well as he lived in the same area as me. In fact, we had been acquainted since about 1991, and in that time, we had developed a good relationship.

A. Yes, he was a very nice man, very good company.

Q. I think you said: We talked about everything – he was cultivated, pleasant and liked to joke. He had a very caustic sense of humour that I liked.

A. Yes, he liked to joke, I remember once he pretended that he was the barman, and he took some people's order with a tray, etcetera. He was a great guy.

Q. You went on to say: He was completely normal and he was always calm.

A. Yes, and also he had a sense of responsibility.

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 132.1:

Hough: Q. Were you saying that he had a strong temper in the sense of having a hot temper?

A. Yes, you may say so.

Q. Was he prone to be angry?

A. I didn't see him often being angry.

Ben Murrell, Security Officer, Villa Windsor: 17 Jan 08: 116.12:

My impression was that he was fairly professional. He seemed really interested to only communicate on a professional basis, fairly dour, not too extravagant, fairly business-like ... fairly one-dimensional in my dealings with him.

Comment: Henri Paul generally appears to be a person who was well-liked, easy-going and capable, socially.

At work, his relationships with staff at times may have been more serious and strained, but he was able to relate very well to those above him – Roulet, Klein and Dodi. His close rapport with Klein and Dodi apparently caused some resentment amongst other staff.

Health and Medical

General Condition

Ritz employees were subject to annual medical check-ups. Henri Paul’s Ritz medical file was not checked by the French experts until March 2008:

Prof Dominique Lecomte & Dr Marceau Spithakis: 27 Mar 08 Report on Henri Paul’s Occupational Health File read out 31 Mar 08: 6.18:

We can therefore say that there is no pathology in this occupational medical file that had a bearing on the road traffic accident.

Frank Klein, President, Ritz: 29 Nov 07: 117.21:

Keen: Q. Did you ever receive any report from the Ritz doctor that Henri Paul might have been drinking or drunk or suffering from the effects of alcohol?

A. No.

Pilot’s Medical: August 1997

On 28 August 1997 – three days before the crash – Henri underwent a medical examination for the continuation of his pilot’s licence.

Dr Diane d’Ivernois, Henri Paul’s Doctor: 28 Aug 97 Certificate read out 19 Feb 08: 9.12:

I the undersigned, Dr Diane Beaulieu d'Ivernois ... certify that M Henri Paul ... fulfils the conditions of physical and mental fitness required of non-professional pilots.... Glasses must be worn for distance work. Date: Paris, 28th August 1997.

Dr Dominique Mélo, Henri Paul’s Doctor and Friend: 16 Sep 97 Statement read out 17 Mar 08: 126.3:

I can tell you that as a health professional, I know that the medicals for pilots are very thorough and detailed – testing for signs of exogenisation, palpitation of the liver, a thorough neurological examination – and consequently a doctor authorised to perform such an examination could not overlook symptoms of alcoholic impregnation. Henri had undergone such a medical a week before he died and had [been] granted his pilot's licence.

Comment: Dr D’Ivernois has never been interviewed by the French or British police and was not heard from at the inquest.

Apartment Searches: Alcohol

Henri Paul’s apartment was searched twice by the police in the days following the crash. The first took place on 3 September 1997 – two days after the Paris Public Prosecutor’s office had told the media that Henri Paul had died with a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit. That search found two bottles containing alcohol. The second search, on 9 September, found at least 18 bottles containing alcohol.

Marc Monot and Gerald Sanderson conducted the initial apartment search.

Marc Monot, Brigade Criminelle Lieutenant: 4 Feb 08: 53.14:

Hough: Q. In your report you mention finding a bottle of champagne and a quarter-full bottle of Martini in the fridge.

A. Yes. They were not seized, those bottles, but I mention in my report that we found in the fridge a bottle of champagne and a bottle of Martini, yes.

Q. You also note finding – some in the dustbin, some out of it – packs of soft drinks.

A. Yes, it was specified.

.... Q. In the course of your report, did you attempt to give a complete account of all bottles of alcohol in the flat or may you have missed some?

A. Within the framework of that search, we were not asked to mention all of the bottles that we could find, and also I have got to specify that the atmosphere was quite tense because the parents of Henri Paul were there and we had to negotiate with them for a while so that they would accept that, so that we proceeded with that search.

Q. So does it surprise you that six days later some of your colleagues conducted a second search and found some bottles of alcohol in the lobby?

A. No, it is not a surprise because that was the aim of that second search, to note down all of the bottles of alcohol that could be found and also medications because that was following the analysis of blood that had been undertaken in the meantime. I personally also proceeded to a second search in the office of Henri Paul at the Ritz Hotel to try to find any traces of alcohol on 9th September.

At 68.18: Keen: Q. On 1st September 1997, the Public Prosecutor's Office in Paris announced or disclosed that a blood/alcohol analysis of the late Henri Paul had allegedly shown him to be more than three times the legal drink driving limit and had suggested that the crash was due to a drunk driver driving too fast. You recall that?

A. It is possible. I do not remember exactly when that was published.

Q. Well you may take it that we have heard evidence that it was on 1st September 1997, Mr Monot. That being the case, can you explain to us why you were sent to search the apartment of Henri Paul on 3rd September 1997? What was the purpose of this search of his apartment?

A. I do not remember precisely, but I think it was to try to find people who we could contact here to try to understand what had been going on before the crash.

Q. Are you saying, then, that you were simply looking at his apartment to identify people that Henri Paul knew?

A. Yes.

....Q. What you record in your statement is that you carried out – and I quote – a detailed search of the three-roomed flat. Is that what you did?

A. Yes, we looked in a few rooms to try to find information concerning people that Henri Paul knew.

Q. You did not just do that, Mr Monot; you actually carried out what you describe in your own statement as a detailed search of the flat. Is that not correct?

A. Yes.

Q.... We have you recording, Mr Monot: Continuing the search, we noted a large quantity of packs of non-alcoholic drinks, some in the dustbin, and in the refrigerator a bottle of white Martini three-quarters empty and a bottle of champagne..... It is apparent, is it not, Mr Monot, that you were not just looking for contact names and numbers, you were in pursuance of a detailed search of the property, looking in the dustbin, in the refrigerator and elsewhere for property?

A. Well, we put down in writing what we saw in the apartment. First of all, we described the place rapidly and then what we find when we look around the place. Maybe the reason why we noted the fact that there were alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages was because the crash related to that possibility of too high a rate of alcohol in the blood.

Q. Exactly. After all, Mr Monot, people do not keep their address book in the refrigerator, do they?

A. That is a matter of – of course, yes.

Q. The point is that in the context of this search, you were looking out for evidence of alcoholic drinks in the apartment, weren't you?

A. I do not remember receiving that specific instruction when I went to the apartment, but as the search was related to a car crash, we certainly put down in writing what the bottles that we could see right away. Maybe the refrigerator was open or maybe the presence of the bottles in the refrigerator was indicated to us by Mr Henri Paul's father.

Q. You did not just look in the refrigerator, Mr Monot. You looked in the dustbin, according to your statement. Is that not correct?

A. Yes, I noted – the dustbin was very visible. I noted what was in it.

Q. In the course of this detailed search, you went to the trouble of even recording that the bottle of white Martini was three-quarters empty. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

....Q. It would appear from the statements we have, Mr Monot, that the second detailed search ... was carried out on the basis of the same Letter Rogatory as the one that you relied upon for the first search. Can you explain that?

A. Yes, that is the case.

Q. When you conducted your search on 3rd September at the apartment of the late Henri Paul, you did so in the knowledge that you were investigating a car crash in which the driver was alleged to have been drunk and to have been an alcoholic?

A. I don't have a specific memory concerning the first search. I remember the second search of the flat, and the Ritz Hotel was ordered to try to find evidence of the kind that is bottles or medications, but not the first one.

Q. Well, can I suggest, Mr Monot, that any search on 9th September was intended in one way or another to try to bolster or support the allegation already made, that Henri Paul was an alcoholic.

A.... I remember that it was a matter that was in our minds on the occasion of the second search on 9th September, following the blood analysis, but I do not think it was the case with the first one.

Q. With respect, Mr Monot, the result of the blood analysis was made public two days before your first search on 3rd September, was it not?

A. Maybe. I do not remember.

Q. On 3rd September, you recalled having carried out a detailed search of a flat consisting of a lounge leading into a kitchen/diner, with two bedrooms, during which you saw a bottle of champagne and a quarter of a bottle of Martini and failed to notice bottles of red wine, champagne, crème de cassis, Ricard, Suze, port, beer, vodka, pineau, Suze, bourbon, apparently contained in various shelves and cupboards throughout the flat. Is that your position?

A. It is something that I have to acknowledge. Once again the first search was done in a tense atmosphere in the presence of the parents of Henri Paul, and it is, as a matter of fact, the proof that we were not looking specifically for bottles of alcohol, but it was not the first aim of that search.

Q. Mr Monot, were you not a little surprised to discover how much alcohol you were supposed to have missed during your search on 3rd September?

A. Well, it was surprising that we missed such a quantity of alcohol that would be – that looked to have been present in different pieces of furniture, but maybe it is due to the fact that it was not our first aim, that it was not the first thing that we were looking for.

Q. Maybe it is due to the fact that it was not there on 3rd September. Is that not a possibility as well, Mr Monot?

A.It is a possibility.

At 77.21: MacLeod: Q. When you searched the property on 3rd September in the presence of Henri Paul's parents, did you search in all the kitchen cupboards?

A. I do not think so. We looked at what was visible right away, but for the fridge. I do not remember why we looked in the fridge.

The second search, on September 9, was undertaken by Eric Gigou and Eric Crosnier. Claude Garrec and Laurence Pujol were also present.

Eric Gigou, Brigade Criminelle Lieutenant, Paris: 4 Feb 08: 81.4:

Hough: Q. You record in your statement that, during your search, you found some shelving in the lobby with various bottles of drink on it.

A. I found bottles in several places and in several locations in the flat.

Q. Yes. I think you found some in shelving in the lobby, some in or on a table in the lobby, some in the fridge and some in a kitchen cupboard.

A. Yes, that is true.

Q. Now, dealing with what was in the lobby ... you describe it as cupboard shelving in your statement. As to the other place where you found drink in the lobby, you say that was a table serving as a bar. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now that has been described by M Garrec as a piece of furniture which you would have to open up to find the bottles inside; is that right?

A. I do not remember, but what is probable is that if this table had to be opened up to find out what was inside, we certainly did it because we were proceeding to search.

Q. Now, just running quickly through what you say you found in the lobby, you say you found, in the shelving: crème de cassis, Ricard, Suze, port, beer, red wine and champagne. Is that right?

A. If it is written, that is true.

....Q. Now, also in your report or statement, you refer to finding, in or on the table in the lobby, Martini, vodka, pineau, Suze and fortified wine. You also refer in your report to finding, in the kitchen cupboard, open bottles of Ricard, bourbon, Martini and a drink called Four Roses.

A. Yes.

Q. You do not mention in this any cans of Coca Cola Lite.

A. I was not thinking about soft drinks.

Jane Scotchbrook, Operation Paget DI: 28 Jan 08: 87.21:

Keen: Q. This [report] refers to the second search disclosing a large quantity of empty drinks bottles.

A. Yes

Q. But you were aware, were you not, that the relevance of the reference to the second police search was that at the time of the first police search on 3rd September, which was a detailed search with an inventory, no such empty drinks bottles were found in the apartment?

A. As I understand it, yes.

Q. Did Operation Paget ever get to the bottom of that, Detective Inspector?

A. It wasn't a question that I specifically asked.

Q. I see.

A. No.

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 142.5:

Hough: Q. The first search on 3rd September revealed a bottle of Martini and a bottle of Champagne in the fridge.

A. That's possible.

Q. Then, in the second search, there were recorded a large number of other bottles of drink in the lobby, both on a table and on some cupboard shelving.

A. I don't share this feeling. The number of bottles were totally normal.

Q. No, I am not suggesting that they weren't. Do you remember yourself whether Henri Paul had a number of bottles of aperitifs on a table in the lobby?

A. Yes, I remember. It was a table that you could open up and the bottles were inside.

Q. Now, from your being in the flat in the week after he died, were any changes made to the flat at any time or anything removed or put in, as far as you know?

A. I didn't think so. You forgot to tell me about the 240 Coca-Cola cans that we found there.

Claude Garrec: 2004 Noel Botham Book The Murder of Princess Diana: Jury Didn’t Hear:

I had the key and let [the police] in. They were only interested in listing the few alcoholic drinks that were there. They didn’t bother writing down the names or the quantities of soft drinks. Their search was focused on alcohol. They even wrote down the names of alcoholic drinks they claimed they had found, but were not there.⁷⁶

Jean & Gisèle Paul, Henri Paul’s Parents: 4 Feb 08: 14.19:

Burnett: Q. I think, Mme Paul, that you sorted out some empty bottles and put them under the sink so that they could be thrown away; is that right?

A. Yes, I dealt with the bottles.

Q. As far as any bottles of alcoholic beverage is concerned, you believed that that was there for Henri to entertain guests. Is that right?

A. Yes, indeed. There were bottles of drinks I knew he did not drink [at] all, such as Martini, white Martini or Suze or – there were also 200 cans of Coca Cola.

Sandra Cudelo, Henri Paul’s Housekeeper: 8 Sep 97 Statement read out 13 Mar 08: 55.1:

There wasn't any alcoholic drink at his flat, except for a bottle of Ricard which had been next to the microwave for months and months and sometimes beer in the fridge. I never saw any other drink. I never saw any empty bottles when I emptied the bins. Henri Paul mostly drank Diet Coke and mineral water.

Paget Report, pp169-70: Jury Didn’t Hear:

Lists of alcohol found in the searches:

3 September 1997:

In fridge:

- One bottle of white Martini, ¼ full

- One bottle of champagne, unopened

9 September 1997:

In fridge:

- Two small bottles of beer, unopened

- One bottle of champagne, unopened, in the fridge

In the lobby:

- Various aperitifs – Crème de Cassis, Ricard, Suze, Port, partially drunk to various degrees

- Beer, red wine, champagne, unopened

On lobby table:

- Various aperitifs – Martini Bianco, Vodka, Pinot, Suze, unopened

- Fortified wine, unopened bottle(s)

In kitchen cupboard:

- Various aperitifs – Ricard, Bourbon 4 Roses, Martini Bianco, opened

Comment: The most obvious fact is that there was a serious difference in the quantities of alcohol found between the two searches – 2 bottles in the first search and 18 bottles six days later.

The question is: Why?

When Monot, who conducted the first search, was asked about its purpose he said it was to try to find people who we could contact. When he was told that the second search yielded greater quantities of alcohol, he said that was because it occurred following the analysis of blood that had been undertaken in the meantime.

That is not a logical explanation because, as Keen pointed out, the first search:

was described in Monot’s report as a detailed search of the three-roomed flat, and

was conducted two days after the high blood alcohol levels had been announced to the world.

When cross-examined by MacLeod, Monot’s explanation for missing 16 bottles of alcohol was that we looked at what was visible right away, but this conflicts directly with his report written three days after the crash: It was a detailed search.

Unfortunately for the French police – and this was not pointed out at the inquest – the variations between the two searches are not just with regard to differing quantities of bottles. On September 3 Monot searched the fridge and found a ¼ full bottle of white Martini and a full bottle of champagne. By September 9 the Martini had disappeared and was replaced by two full bottles of beer. No explanation for this discrepancy has been asked for, or volunteered.

In the end, Monot admitted that it was possible that all the alcohol may not have been there in the first search.

It is amazing that the British police, in the form of DI Jane Scotchbrook, were content with not asking any questions about the major discrepancies between the two searches. It is also surprising that she was not asked at the inquest why she didn’t query the search results. Considering that the Paget Report was meant to be a thorough investigation into the crash and that it concluded that Henri Paul’s blood alcohol level played a major role in the cause of the crash, this would appear to be a major oversight by Scotland Yard.

Claude Garrec was never specifically asked at the inquest if he thought the search results for September 9 – when he was present – were correct. His evidence provided in Noel Botham’s 2004 book would certainly indicate that he did not think it was an honest search.

The evidence of Gisèle Paul appears to relate to empty bottles, which did not appear to be mentioned or counted in either of the searches.

The French police have never given a convincing explanation for why they found it necessary to conduct a second search of Henri Paul’s flat. The evidence seems to indicate that by the time of the September 9 search, they had either planted alcohol in the apartment, or as Garrec suggested, have just written down alcohol that wasn’t present. Laurence Pujol, who was also present at that search, should have been asked what her recollection was, but she never has been, and wasn’t asked at the inquest.

When the evidence is looked at on balance, it would appear that the amount of alcohol found in the September 9 search was incorrect.

Links to Intelligence Agencies and Police

Whether and to what extent Henri had connections with intelligence agencies could have relevance to Henri’s unexplained actions and movements on the evening of the crash – dealt with later in the book.

Discreet and Secretive

Frank Klein, President, Ritz: 29 Nov 07: 132.22:

Horwell: Q. You have described himas being discreet and not the type to confide in you.

A. Yes.

Claude Roulet, Vice-President, Ritz: 5 Dec 07: 33.11:

He was quite secret and he did not speak too much about his private life.

François Tendil, Night Security Manager, Ritz: 3 Dec 07: 77.18:

Horwell: Q. You said ... that Henri Paul was very discreet and that you knew nothing about his private life. Is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Catherine Esperandieu, Head of Human Resources, Ritz: Jury Didn’t Hear:

[Henri] was fairly secretive and did not recount his weekends.⁷⁷

Jean Henri Hocquet, Former Head of Security, Ritz: Jury Didn’t Hear:

He never spoke about his private life. He kept a lot of things to himself and did not talk about himself much.⁷⁸

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 131.2:

He had some secrets and that's normal. I could see some things, but he didn't tell everything.

Claude Garrec: 2006 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

Henri Paul was confidential about his work and didn’t mention any names.⁷⁹

Dr Dominique Mélo, Henri Paul’s Doctor and Friend: 16 Sep 97 Statement read out 17 Mar 08: 121.19:

To sum up Henri's personality for you, he was a secretive man.... He did not talk about his professional or his private life.

Jean-Claude Morere, Friend of Henri Paul: 17 Sep 97 Statement read out 13 Mar 08: 52.5:

Henri was very discreet about his private life.... Henri was very discreet professionally. He didn't talk about his work.

Myriam Lemaire, Manager of Le Bourgogne: 4 Sep 97 Statement read out 13 Mar 08: 59.13:

M Paul was very discreet as far as his work was concerned.

Josiane Le Tellier, Owner of Le Champmeslé Lesbian Bar: 13 Mar 08: 88.25:

Hough: Q. Did he ever speak to you about the work he did?

A. No, as a matter of fact, never.... He was discreet....

Comment: This evidence shows that a wide cross-section of Henri Paul’s Ritz colleagues, close friends and acquaintances viewed him as discreet or secretive. Even his closest friend, Claude Garrec – who had been friends with Henri since being teenagers in the early 1970s – said that he didn’t mention any names to do with his work.

If Henri Paul was working for one or more intelligence agencies, in addition to his Ritz job, it would be logical that he could come across as secretive and careful with information, with both his social and working contacts. Intelligence agencies are, by their very nature, secretive and discreet – see Part 5.

Apartment Search

During the September 3 search of the apartment, Henri’s father gave Monot a ten page list of contact phone numbers printed from Henri Paul’s computer.

Marc Monot, Brigade Criminelle Lieutenant: 4 Feb 08: 56.9:

Hough: Q. On that list, which you append to your statement, there are the names of various police officers, I think. Is that right?

A. Yes, people that Mr Paul knew who were in the framework of his position at the Ritz Hotel, as deputy head of security.

Q. Now, there is also an entry on the list entitled DST with a name under it. Do you know what that abbreviation stands for?

A. Yes. It is a police department.

Q. I think, in fact, it is an internal security service of the French state, isn't it?

A. Yes, correct.

At 61.25: Mansfield: Q. Did you look amongst any of his documentation for the purposes of seeing whether any of the security service personnel of foreign states appeared anywhere?

A. No, I did not participate either in the investigations relating to the names appearing on the list.

Q. Should these questions be addressed to Major Mulès?

A. I can tell you that the folder comprises 2,000 sheets. I do not know who was responsible for what.

Comment: This is reasonably typical of the approach taken by the French police to this inquest: Be of as little help as possible, and particularly on issues of key importance, like whether the driver of the Mercedes S280 had links with foreign security services.

This cross-examination of Monot occurred two months prior to the completion of the inquest, yet there is no inquest record of any attempt to follow up on this.

Marc Monot stated that the DST, the French equivalent of MI5, was a police department. Monot was a member of the Brigade Criminelle, described the following day by Commander Mulès as the best of the best in the French police.⁸⁰ It is very difficult to accept that Monot really believed the DST was a department of the police. So why then did he say that under oath? Was he nervous that the French intelligence agency had been mentioned in connection with Henri Paul?

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 155.16:

Mansfield: Q. You were shown by the British police a list of names and addresses and telephone numbers that came from documents found in Henri Paul's flat.... This paragraph [is from your statement]...: In addition to those on the list that clearly relate to the police, names listed with 'CIAT' refer to local police stations, 'COMMS' denotes the rank of Commissaire, 'COL' denotes Colonel de Police, 'RG' denotes the 'Renseignements Généraux' [and in English we have 'French equivalent of a Borough Intelligence Unit'], 'DST' denotes 'Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire' [French equivalent to MI5]. Do you remember seeing all those initials in the documents you were shown?

A. Yes, it seems to me.

French Police

Henri Paul was recommended to the Ritz Hotel by a member of the French police.

Frank Klein, President, Ritz: 29 Nov 07: 118.16:

Keen: Q. Is it correct that his engagement at the hotel in security was recommended to you or to your staff by members of the judicial police?

A. Yes, via Mr Roulet.

Claude Roulet, Vice-President, Ritz: 5 Dec 07: 31.14:

Burnett: Q. M Klein gave a reception to thank police officers who had assisted the hotel, and M Paul was recommended, in essence, by some of those officers?

A. Yes. Mr Klein said to these policemen that he intended to have a security service and he asked to these people if they had someone to recommend.

Q. And they recommended M Paul?

A. And one of them recommended M Paul.

At 34.3: He had another close friend who was Jacques Pocher, the policeman who recommended him....

At 131.10: Mansfield: Q. Do you remember which branch of the police had originally recommended him?

A. Yes, it was the branch of the police judiciaire⁸¹ dealing with the area of the hotel.

At 6 Dec 07: 39.9: Horwell: Q. Mr Pocher was an investigator?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. He did not work for the security service or any specialist branch of the French police?

A. No.

Q. Pocher was simply a friend of Henri Paul?

A. Yes, they were born in the same city.

Comment: There is an interesting conflict of evidence here.

Klein, who was not questioned further on this, stated that Roulet had a role in Henri Paul getting the Ritz job. This would make sense because Roulet and Henri knew each other from before Henri worked at the Ritz – see earlier.

When Roulet is questioned on how Henri commenced work at the Ritz, he does not mention his own role in this – he instead states that Frank Klein asked the police directly for a recommendation. This could have significance because it will be revealed that Roulet may have played more of a role in the tragic weekend’s events than has been acknowledged to date – see later.

DST

⁸²

Jean-François Clair, Deputy Head of DST: 23 Jun 05 Letter read out 13 Mar 08: 76.20:

Henri Paul, born 3rd July 1956 in Lorient, is known to our department as a former head of security at the Ritz Hotel, 15 Place Vendôme, Paris. As such, Henri Paul has been in touch with members of the DST specifically tasked with inquiries in hotel circles.

Claude Roulet, Vice-President, Ritz: 5 Dec 07: 37.23:

A. The French police knew about the arrival of some guests, and when they needed to have a look about what they did, they asked ... the security service of the Ritz to have some tips about what they did and when they came in and out and who they met and so on.

Burnett: Q. Would it thus have been part of M Paul's duties to provide that information to the French authorities when requested?

A. Well, usually it is the task of the security chief, but Henri Paul had very good contacts with the French police, so maybe these contacts meant that he was contacted more than his chief.

Q. You give an example in your statement of a request you made of M Paul to speak to the DST about a Russian diplomat who was coming.... I wonder if you could just explain that to us ... M Roulet.

A. Well, I was advised about the presence of a Russian diplomat, and I called Henri Paul to say that this person would be here and Henri Paul said, Well, I will call someone, and he will be able to speak to this person. I was contacted by someone of the DST, who wanted to speak to me to know the details about this person.

....Q. Again, that is an example you give of information being provided by the Ritz to the French authorities. Did that happen fairly frequently?

A. Yes. The police were very frequently aware about the presence of the guests, even when we did not know who they were, and they did ask to have some inquiries about these clients.

Q. And the Ritz was happy to provide that information?

A. It was not happy, but had to.

At 131.14: Mansfield: Q. So it would not surprise you at all, therefore, fairly straightforward, that he would have regular contacts, even if he did not use them all the time – he would have contacts with French police forces; the RG, the DST and so on.

A. Yes.

Q. It does not surprise you?

A. It was his duty.

At 6 Dec 07: 36.17: Horwell: Q. There was one example you referred to in your statement... of 18th January 2006....: In the early 1990s, I had some dealings with a Russian diplomat. I asked Henri Paul to get in touch with the DST, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire...in order to pass on some information. He spent a whole day trying to find someone to talk to. He did not have any direct contacts.

A. Yes.

Q. You have never worked for the French or British security services?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Henri Paul has ever worked for the French or British security services?

A. I have no idea.

Q. But do you have any reason to believe he did?

A. No, but anyway the French police is very different in this way. You have the RG, who are collecting information to give to the police. These people are most of the time dealing with the hotels. They are asking for arrival lists or they call the hotel to say, We know that that person is coming. These people are dealing with the hotel; the DST, very seldom.

Q. But do you have any reason to believe that Henri Paul had ever worked for either security service?

A. Maybe collaborated, but never worked –

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. In giving information about what happens in the hotel, about clients in the hotel.

Q. Such as you have done?

A. Yes.

Jean & Gisèle Paul, Henri Paul’s Parents: 4 Feb 08: 14.1:

Burnett: Q. In the course of the work that Henri did at the Ritz, we have heard that he had contact from time to time with the French security authorities. Were you aware of that?

A. No. He never spoke to us about that.

DGSE

⁸³

M. Henry, Brigade Criminelle Commandant: 16 Jun 05 Verbal Statement Description read out 13 Mar 08: 78.15:

"Commandant Henry of the Brigade Criminelle informed Detective Sergeant Easton⁸⁴ that neither Henri Paul nor James Andanson⁸⁵ was known to the DGSE and that neither was an informant of that organisation nor had been employed by them. Commandant Henry said that the DGSE was unwilling to record the information in a statement as it would set a precedent, and they would require an exemption from the French Official Secrets Act. This conversation is recorded in a message."

Gerald Posner, a US investigative writer and journalist, provided information acquired from meetings with two different US intelligence sources in 1999.

Gerald Posner: 28 Feb 08: 170.12:

Burnett: Q. What else were you told about the relationship between Henri Paul and that French intelligence agency [DGSE]?

A.... This was not an unusual relationship for French intelligence to have with somebody as Henri Paul, head of security at a major international hotel in Paris, where diplomats and businessmen and others came regularly as a source of information. It was a relationship that was also based upon pay for information....

Q.... You were told he was able to obtain details of high-ranking important visitors to the Ritz Hotel and pass on that information; is that the nature of the relationship?

A. Yes, as I gather it.

Q. And that he was thus a paid informant and no more. That is what you were told?

A. Right ... I hesitate on the word informant. He was paid for, right, services and I think of informant as somebody doing this on a regular basis. I am not quite sure how steady this was.

Q.... [Your statement] in 2005...: He was a paid informant and no more. There is apparently a file on him in this role with the French authorities confirming he had a standard informant/pay relationship with this agency. I have not seen this file. Although I am certain it was the DGSE with which he had this relationship, I was also told from the same source that Henri Paul had relations with the DST... and the Renseignements Généraux. I understand these were less formal.... Is that still a fair summary of what your source told you?

A. Absolutely correct. Since 2000, I have been trying to write an article for the French authorities to release that very file, the first one that you talked about, with the DGSE. For the benefit of the public, that should be in the public domain.

....Q. You say that [a second] source confirmed some of the information provided to you by the NSA source. Which bits?

A. The part that was confirmed as far as I remember was the existence of a relationship between Henri Paul and several aspects of French security/law enforcement/intelligence....

At 173.13: You would expect internal French security ... to be interested in what the Chief of Security at the Ritz could do. I found it far more intriguing that his most formal relationship in fact might be with the [French] equivalent of the CIA or MI6because of the foreign visitors, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the members of foreign governments that passed through the Ritz.

At 181.16: Mansfield: Q. In relation to the DGSE in France ... that organisation has categorically denied so far having any file on Henri Paul or having any contact with him, do you follow?....

A.... That the DGSE has adamantly denied having a file on Henri Paul or connections with Henri Paul ... does not surprise me. In my dealings with intelligence agencies, primarily here in the United States, they will often obfuscate, lie, hold back information, refuse to release it until they are absolutely forced to years or decades down the road.... I called on the DGSE before and I call on them again today in this open forum to release the files they have on their relationship with Henri Paul. It will eventually come out. It is better to get it out now than to continue to be dishonest about it.

MI6

Frank Klein, President, Ritz: 29 Nov 07: 105.2:

Mansfield: Q. The person who is likely within the hotel to have contact with the security and intelligence services of a foreign country, foreign to France that is, would be Henri Paul, acting head of security?

A. Definitely.

Q. So it would not surprise you to know that he would have links with foreign security services.

A. It does not surprise me at all. Other hotels have the same.

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 138.17:

Hough: Q. Were you aware whether Henri Paul had any contact with the French security services and with the embassies of other countries in the course of his work?

A. Yes.

Q. M Klein has told these inquests that hotel security would have such contacts perfectly legitimately.

Marc Monot, Brigade Criminelle Lieutenant: 4 Feb 08: 56.22:

Hough: Q. We have heard from Mr Klein of the Ritz that it would be part of M Paul's job to be in touch with the police and the security services of France. Was that a view that you took in your investigation?

A. Yes. I think it is quite normal.

Comment: Inquest lawyer, Jonathon Hough, has completely changed Frank Klein’s evidence. Klein indicated in November that Henri Paul would have had links with the security services of foreign countries. When cross-examining Garrec on January 31, Hough changed this to: French security services and with the embassies of other countries. Then the following week, on February 4, Hough went a step further, eliminating any foreign aspect, changing the evidence to the police and the security services of France.

This is a critical distinction. MI6, the British security intelligence service, have outrightly denied any links with Henri Paul – see later. Klein’s evidence points to the possibility of a connection between Henri Paul and MI6: Klein says foreign security services and given that Britain is a next door neighbour and closely connected to France, it is logical that MI6 could have been one of the security services included in Klein’s statement.

Hough’s misquoting of Klein limits Henri’s intelligence involvement to French agencies, and thus excludes MI6 as a possibility.

Claude Roulet, Vice-President, Ritz: 5 Dec 07: 132.1:

Mansfield: Q. If it is [a hotel guest] from abroad bringing [their own] security, then if it is a British person, British security services might need to contact Henri Paul.

A. Yes.

Q. You agree. So it would not surprise you at all, would it, if in fact Henri Paul did have contact with British security services?

A. Absolutely not.

At 6 Dec 07: 38.4: Horwell: Q. It was put to you yesterday that perhaps the British security service might need to contact the security section of a hotel, and you said Yes, perhaps. Were you aware of any such contact between the British security service and the Ritz?

A. No.

Comment: Police lawyer, Richard Horwell, has changed a straight Yes to a more tentative Yes, perhaps.

Jean & Gisèle Paul, Henri Paul’s Parents: 4 Feb 08: 26.1:

Horwell: Q. You know, don't you, that it has been suggested that your son worked for the British Security Services.

A. We heard that, but that is totally wrong.

Q.... You say that that suggestion is wrong and that you have been hurt by it. Is that true?

A. That is quite strange. We never heard anything wrong about our son, and suddenly that was quite strange, to hear about that.

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 139.2:

He had contacts to manage with the foreign embassies; for instance, when there were VIPs coming from foreign countries who wanted to have weapons, he had contacts to deal with all these things.

At 139.17: Hough: Q. You are very firmly of the view, are you, that he didn't have any improper or extracurricular connections with any security services?

A. As far as I know, these contacts were only professional contacts.

Q. Now, Henri Paul's parents have told the British police that they don't believe he had any extracurricular work for foreign or French security services. So is it right that you agree with the position of the Paul family?

A. Yes.

At 148.20: Mansfield: Q. In his capacity as acting head of security from time to time, he would have contact with both French security services and security services relating to other countries whose dignitaries, diplomats or whatever were coming to France?

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. In particular, you gave the British police an example of how he might help....: Another anecdote Henri Paul mentioned was that by telling the security services about the visit of certain persons, if the guest was having difficulty in obtaining a landing permission for a particular airport, the security services could facilitate their arrival. Even if the French Government didn't particularly want the client in France for a political reason, by being informed and facilitating their arrival, they would know where this person would be staying.... Now, is that an accurate recollection of what he, Henri Paul, told you?

....A. Yes.

....Q. If, on the evening of 30th August 1997, Henri Paul had been approached on behalf of the British security services for information about the movement of Princess Diana in Paris between the Ritz, Villa Windsor or the apartment in Arsène Houssaye, in order to better protect them, Henri Paul would have been willing to provide that information, wouldn't he?

A. I ignored – I mean, I can't tell you that. I don't know.

Q. All right. Just be careful. I am not suggesting that you know, but you were asked whether he would, for example, be loyal to Mohamed Al Fayed and Dodi Al Fayed and you said yes. You have also agreed that he would assist the security services of foreign countries if they wanted to know the movements of anybody they were concerned about staying at the Ritz or moving between the Ritz and other places.

A. Yes, of course. I mean, it's that opposite. I confirm that Henri Paul would never have acted in an unloyal way to Mr Al Fayed or Mr Klein.

Q. But if he had been misled by those acting on behalf of a security service, he might not have known what he was getting into; do you follow?

A. No, he was much too clever for that.

Q. Do you think he ever misled you?

A. Never.

At 171.23: MacLeod: Q. When Mr Mansfield asked Mr Garrec about Henri Paul participating with the British secret services, did [you] say, Il va un peu loin, la?⁸⁶

A. Yes, because I thought that it was a bit excessive in the sense that I don't believe that my friend was disloyal to his workplace and to the people who employed him.

....Mansfield: Sir, may I make it clear, unless there has been a misunderstanding, I was not suggesting in the questions I put that there was any disloyalty; quite the reverse.

Comment: Claude Garrec has agreed with Henri’s parents that Henri was not involved in extracurricular work for foreign or French security services.

The point is that if Henri was involved in doing extra work for intelligence agencies he would not have been about to divulge that information to Garrec or his parents. Part of his understanding in working for an intelligence agency would have been a requirement for secrecy and discretion – and this is exactly how people who were in contact with Henri described him: secretive and discreet.

By their own admission – see earlier – the Pauls had no idea that Henri had any contact with security services on behalf of the Ritz. Other evidence – Klein, Roulet, Garrec, Posner, Henri’s phone list – confirmed that there was contact, simply by the nature of his job.

It is unlikely that Henri would have viewed any extra work for the intelligence agencies as wrongful or improper. This would have been important and well paid work on behalf of national governments.

Mansfield’s questioning has been misunderstood by Garrec. Mansfield was suggesting the possibility of security services approaching Henri Paul from a point of view to assisting in the protection of Diana and Dodi. If Henri Paul had felt that he was working with MI6 from a position of increasing security, then he may not have even considered the possibility that this could be disloyal to the Al Fayeds. This suggestion from Mansfield makes sense, in that if Henri Paul had thought that the journey in the Mercedes S280 was going to end in tragedy, and result in his own death, then it is most unlikely he would have got behind the wheel.⁸⁷

It is natural that Garrec, being Henri’s best friend, would be defensive on his behalf, and it is also natural that he would not want to believe that Henri Paul could have been working on behalf of MI6 on the night.

Richard Tomlinson, Ex-MI6 Agent: 13 Feb 08: 31.3:

Hilliard: Q. What you said to the police in 2004 was that [in 1992] you had been following, out of curiosity, an operation involving smuggling items out of Russia. You said that whilst reading the reports, you had seen that several meetings had taken place at the Paris Ritz Hotel.

A. Yes, I believe that is the case, yes.

....Q. Is this right, that you are not able to recall specifically if you saw the name of the individual or whether it was even –

A. That is correct. I would not remember the name of an individual, no.

....Q. You told the police some things that you thought were the case about the person who had been mentioned in the P file.⁸⁸... For example, that the person was French, was a security officer at the Ritz and had an interest in flying.⁸⁹

A. I believe that those were the things that I remembered, principally, yes, because it is quite unusual for a French person to work for the British Secret Intelligence Service or to be providing information to the British Secret Intelligence Service. I remember thinking it was odd that there was a French person doing that..... I remember that he was interested in flying because that is an interest of mine and so that was another thing that stayed in my mind.

....Q. We will hear that the Ritz Hotelin Paris did not feature as a meeting place in the way that you have described.

A. Well, I find that very surprising that MI6would claim that they have no interest in the Ritz Hotel when you bear in mind that people like Jonathan Aitken⁹⁰ stayed there, that Khashoggi⁹¹ stayed there. People with considerable influence in the Middle East and arms sales often stayed in the Ritz Hotel.

....Q. According, again, Mr Tomlinson, to the results of the search, there is no file on Henri Paul, and according to the results he did not and never worked for SIS.

A. Well, that is according to what the police have found going through MI6 files after what they said, but, you know, it is – that is their version of events.

....Q. Mr Tomlinson, what you said to just the police about this, if it just helps you, in May of 2005....: However, because of the profile of HP [Henri Paul], RT [Richard Tomlinson] feels that he would certainly have been recruited by some intelligence service, and the inference RT drew from reading the dossier and from subsequent knowledge of HP, that these two were the same individual, was a plausible inference. He even now does not definitively exclude the fact that HP worked in some way for the SIS or another intelligence service because he remembers mention of the Ritz and a French person working there in some dossier, but he cannot be more specific than that. That is what it says.

A. Yes. What I am mentioning there is that Henri Paul, if I am correct, was a security officer in the Ritz Hotel. Someone of that profile in a large hotel, a hotel which is used often by persons of significant intelligence interest, the security officer of a hotel is one of the first people intelligence officers try to recruit because they have unparalleled access to which room such-and-such a person may be staying in. They have access to all the rooms, if they wish to install microphones or listening equipment or whatever or cameras, the security officer has access. So they are always, in any major hotel they are always people who are of interest to the intelligence services and the target of intelligence services. That is what I am mentioning there, that there is no doubt that Henri Paul would have been of interest to an intelligence service.... If you wanted to recruit one person within the Ritz Hotel to work for you, it would be a security officer. He would be your first choice.

At 96.14: Mansfield: Q. Now, what is accepted ... is one would expect the security services to have a relationship with the head of security at a large hotel. So there is nothing controversial in that, is there?

A. No. In our training we were – actually, this is what we were told, the security heads of hotel were people we should try to target on overseas operations because they were very useful people.

Mr 4, MI6 Head Agent in France: 29 Feb 08: 47.10:

Mansfield: Q. MI6 would have had, putting it generally, an interest in the movements and meetings of people at the Ritz, wouldn't it?

A. Not in a general sense, no.

Q. In a specific sense?

A. It did not at that time, no.

Q. You see, we have had