Legal analysis of the death of Princess Diana in that Paris car accident

Princess Diana, her high profile death in a high speed car accident, a Big Brother society and unanswered questions and questionable issues… these are the seemingly paranoid conspiratorial ramblings of leading lawyer Michael Mansfield.

However, because he's one of the nation's top QCs - Queen's Counsel - we can't easily dismiss invisible, secretive and shady connections he perceives may have caused or led to the death of the world's top princess.

His book of memoirs about his life as a "radical lawyer" is just out and he has little doubt that Diana's death was not an accident. In which case, we can assume he continues to wonder, like many, if it was murder most foul.

The death of the princess is apparently etched on the memories of every British citizen - everyone knowing where they were when the news of the terrible Mercedes car crash in the Alma Tunnel, a Paris underpass, was streamed into public consciousness by the global media.

I was in Dallas, Texas, in the USA on August 31, 1997. Wandering about a shopping mall looking for a cheap pair of Levis, I spotted the headline on a computer screen displaying an Internet news page.

That first story was somewhat vague and I remember trying to hope that the worst wouldn't happen, that Princess Di would not die. As fuller details started to emerge and be published or broadcast, I recall there was a sense of morbid fascination as well as enormous sadness.

The media coverage was mesmerising, utterly compelling. As the story unfolded, the death of the woman known as the "People's Princess" was almost as traumatic for many as the passing of a close family member.

Now, years on, the public still can't seem to close the book on her life - which is partly why, I imagine, the lawyer Michael Mansfield has brought out his book. Undoubtedly, it will be a commercial hit.

Various media cover details of his reasonings about the Diana case and, in fact, there can be little doubt they stand up to initial scrutiny. The obvious issue though is they have not been proven.

Mansfield acted for Mohamed Al Fayed, the Harrods owner, whose son Dodi was in an intimate relationship with Diana. The lawyer points out that his client simply sought answers about what caused the death of his son as any concerned grieving parent would want.

How does it all add up to a possible conspiracy? What key issues remain unanswered? Here's what Mansfield highlights:

  • The inquest jury decided on a verdict of unlawful killing, and did not believe it was a tragic accident - by the drivers of both the Mercedes and the following vehicles.

  • The Mercedes carrying Dodi and the princess was seen sandwiched between a "dark car" in front and a large motorcycle behind. The other two vehicles were never traced.

  • The driver of a white Fiat, which had glancing contact with the Mercedes, was also not traced.

  • Three hours when the movements of Dodi's chauffeur Henri Paul could not be established - on the evening of August 30, 1997.

  • During the three months before the crash, there were unexplained regular and sizeable sums of money that went into Henri Paul's several bank accounts.

  • A box of missing personal papers - dubbed the "Crown Jewels" because of their perceived significance to investigations into her death - that were owned by Diana.

  • Diana had premonitions about her death, claiming her husband was planning an accident. And no-one apparently questions she was a victim of much surveillance.

  • Her life was being monitored, by the press and by the State. The princess was at the heart, it seems, of an Orwellian Big Brother-type existence.

  • Diana was a threat to "the established order". As a princess she became divorced from the heir to the throne, Charles the Prince of Wales, and she had a lover, James Gilbey. The Royal Household, including the Windsors, were mostly unable to contain their aversion to her, a fact she spelled out in a Panorama interview in 1995.

  • She was preparing a controversial dossier that she claimed would prove the British Government and many high-ranking public figures were profiting from landmine sales in countries such as Bosnia and Angola, including the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) which she believed was behind the sale of many British-made landmines causing much misery to many people.

Leaving the whole affair up in the air, Mansfield said, "In many of the criminal cases I've handled it sometimes helps to start at the end rather than the beginning, especially where death is involved.

"Ask the question: who does it benefit? If it benefits no one, that might suggest one scenario. On the other hand, if there are some obvious beneficiaries - and, more importantly, some less obvious ones - it may be productive to trace the chain of causation backwards."

And so, the questions remain and the whole world does not have clear answers about that fatal car accident. Intrigue and conspiracy swirl about - and lawyers and legal teams in this case can reap and enjoy financial or career benefits as a result.

However, at the same time, Mansfield honestly sums up the whole sorry saga pointing out it might have been a tragic accident but he prefers a healthy and inquisitive assessment of the authorised version. "Judging whether a hidden hand is at work is always difficult," he says.

Can I claim?