It’s been almost 13 years since that fateful night back in 1997 when Di and Dodi died. I love putting it like that, it sounds like a 1970’s folk song. I imagine a bearded guitarist with a headband in a faded photograph singing “La la lah, la, la. Di dodi died”.
But that’s another story.
Apparently, Di’s death was my generation’s JFK assassination – everyone knew where they were when they heard the news. I was having an early morning pee in a house in Blackbird Leys in Oxford. It’s for this reason that I now always check the news before doing anything mundane or vaguely embarrassing. Perish the thought that I’m merrily scratching my arse when I hear that Madiba has shuffled skyward.
Anyway, at last, the mystery of who popped Diana’s clogs has been solved by Mohammed al-Fayed’s lawyer, Michael Mansfield QC, who has spoken through the mouthpiece of Middle England, the Daily Mail. It could be one of the most awesome articles they’ve ever done.
Diana, Princess of Wales was killed because she planned to expose senior members of the British arms trade involved with land mines, a leading lawyer claimed today.
Michael Mansfield QC, who represented Mohamed al-Fayed in the inquest into the death of his son Dodi and the former royal, said Diana claimed she had an ‘exposure diary’ in which she was going to unmask the people most closely involved with the British manufacturing of land mines.
Interesting stuff. But how on earth can he prove this sort of accusation?
Easy – the missing box of papers theory:
Mr Mansfield said there is a missing box of papers which could contain crucial information.
Wow. A missing box of papers. But what sort of papers?
Newspapers? Cigarette papers? Toilet papers?
Enlighten us, Michael!
‘Nobody really knows what was in it.’
Except papers, surely?
‘The box exists but when it was opened there was nothing in it and everybody has forgotten what was in it.’
Woah there! Hang on. I’m getting bewilderingly confused. This missing box of papers is actually empty? Surely that would make it a missing box of nothing. All the missing boxes of papers that I’ve not been able to locate have been full of papers. The hint is in the description.
The “of papers” bit, in particular.
And what sort of people are you dealing with here? There’s nothing in the missing box of papers (not even papers) and they’ve “forgotten what was in it”? Is it actually possible to forget nothing? Surely that’s the same as remembering everything. Like an elephant. Are you associating with pachyderms, Michael? Are those the individuals who have forgotten what was in this missing box not of papers? Elephants? Is that what you’re trying to tell us?
‘I don’t know what was in it. It is said there were papers in there.’
So you are basing your theory that Princess Di was knocked off over a missing box of papers that was said to contain papers, but didn’t actually contain papers when it was opened in front of you and your wrinkly grey posse?
Can you see why I might be struggling to take you seriously here, Mikey?
‘Two people so vilified suddenly end up in a crash. I started to ask… how did this come about?’
Firstly, most crashes are sudden. That’s why they’re crashes. But anyway.
My guess has always been that they were in a car which wrapped itself around a pillar in a tunnel. Other pairs of vilified people that I have known have seemingly escaped crashes by not being in cars which have wrapped themselves around a pillar in a tunnel. Equally, I have also heard stories of completely non-vilified individuals who have been in crashes as well.
Some involving pillars.
Probably.
When asked how he distanced himself from conspiracy theorists, Mr Mansfield said: ‘I think most people think I’m a lunatic and that’s fine. I’m not a conspiracy theorist about everything and there is cock-up as opposed to conspiracy but it’s a very healthy analysis. It gets you to ask questions you wouldn’t otherwise ask.’
Oh, you’ve certainly done that, Mr M. My mind is now awash with queries of whether there were sinister elephantine agents behind this “accident”. Maybe they were the ones in the bar of the Ritz Hotel plying Henri Paul with shots of tequila to try and get him trunk.
Drunk, drunk – I meant drunk, sorry.
The way they slipped around the hotel CCTV was incredible though. But then, they are masters of disguise, are they not? How many of us have ever found an elephant in a bowl of custard, for example? Not me, for one.
Papers in missing boxes of papers, yes. Elephants in bowls of custard, not so much.
So yes, I think you’re a lunatic, Michael Mansfield. And that’s fine.
But I look forward with eager anticipation to your next hypothesis on Diana’s death. One which, I hope, will involve unicorns, Somalian pirates, some wood chippings and a surprisingly tasty crisp Greek salad.
But please. No more elephants. OK?
