Princess Diana’s fatal wound was “tiny” and “incredibly rare”, a coroner who reviewed the evidence claims in a book that says the princess’ death is a “classic example” of a “what if” case.
Princess Diana PHOTO: Getty Images
Princess Diana’s fatal wound was tiny, “in the wrong place” and so unique that a distinguished forensic pathologist has never seen one like it before, according to one book.
The Princess of Wales died in a car accident in Paris in 1997, but Dr. Richard Shepherd claims she would have survived if she had been wearing a seat belt, writes the-express.com.
Had she been kept in the back seat, the mother of Princes William and Harry would have gone out in public just two days later with fractures and bruises, the pathologist suggests.
Dr Shepherd, who examined the evidence in the case, said the small fatal tear in a vein in one of Diana’s lungs was incredibly unusual – and dismissed conspiracy theories about her death.
In his book Unnatural Causes, the pathologist wrote: “Her specific injury is so rare that in my entire career I don’t think I’ve ever seen another. Diana’s was a very small injury, but in the wrong place”.
In an extract published in the Mail on Sunday, Dr Shepherd described the death of the Princess of Wales as a “classic example“case”if not”. If she had been wearing a seat belt, if she had hit the front seat at a slightly different angle or at a lower speed, and if she had been placed in an ambulance immediately after the accident in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel, he wrote .
Dr. Shepherd revealed in his writings that the most significant moment “if only” of the tragic accident on August 31, 1997 was tied to the seat belt. He stated: “If she had been immobilized, she probably would have appeared in public two days later with a bruised eye, maybe a little out of breath from fractured ribs, and a broken arm in a scarf.”
He also specified: “The pathology of his death is, I think, undeniable. But around that small, fatal rupture in a pulmonary vein are woven many other facts, some of which are opaque enough to allow a multitude of theories to flourish.”
At the age of 36, Diana had suffered multiple fractures and minor chest trauma.
According to Dr. Shepherd, Diana was not immediately placed in an ambulance because she initially appeared stable and able to communicate, but the ruptured vein in her chest was gradually bleeding. Diana was in the car with her wealthy partner Dodi Fayed, 42, their driver Henri Paul, 41, and Mr Fayed’s bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, who was in the front passenger seat.
Rees-Jones was the only survivor and the only person wearing a seat belt. Dr Shepherd wrote that Paul collided with the steering wheel and, microseconds later, was struck from behind by Fayed, who was traveling at over 100km/h.
In essence, Paul served as “airbag” for Fayed and both were killed on the spot, he concluded.
The pathologist concluded that the energy of Diana’s impact with the back of Rees-Jones’ seat would have been slightly reduced due to her lighter weight and the absorption of some of the force by the bodyguard’s seat belt. The Princess of Wales gradually lost consciousness in the ambulance and was later pronounced dead in hospital despite emergency surgery.
A British inquest in 2008 determined that Diana was unlawfully killed, with paparazzi photographers and Paul to blame. Photographers followed the car from the Ritz Hotel to Fayed’s apartment.
None of them have been charged by the French police.
A French police investigation concluded in 1999 found that the accident occurred as a result of Paul losing control of the car due to excessive speed while under the influence of alcohol and prescribed medication. According to French police, he did not have a driver’s license to drive passengers in the Mercedes S280 sedan, which was traveling between 73 and 96 km/h at the time of the accident.
Dr Shepherd reviewed the evidence as part of a 2004 police inquiry led by Sir John Stevens, then chief constable of the Metropolitan Police, to investigate conspiracy theories and determine whether there was any reason to doubt they were victims of an accident . Dr Shepherd agreed with the inquest’s conclusion that it was a tragic accident.
The 2004 investigation, which is said to have cost £3m, involved a thorough examination of the Mercedes, a visit to the crash site and the compilation of around 1,500 witness statements and 20,000 documents. Dr Shepherd, who also worked on the Stephen Lawrence murder case and the Hungerford massacre, discusses his investigations and findings into some of Britain’s most notable cases in his new book.
