Red Room
Background guide
TISBMUN XXV
Letter from the Executive Board
Dear Delegates,
Welcome to The Red Room, one of the most intricate and compelling committees to ever grace this
conference. We are truly honored to have you as part of this bold experiment in truth, secrecy, and
historical inquiry. This committee is unlike any other; it merges the precision of a legal inquest with the
unpredictability of a crisis simulation, demanding from each of you a rare balance of intellect,
adaptability, and moral clarity.
Your agenda, “Investigating the Truth Behind Princess Diana’s Fatal Car Crash and the Allegations of
Conspiracy,” stands as one of the most complex and emotionally charged events in modern history.
Princess Diana was not just a royal figure; she was a symbol of compassion, rebellion, and human
vulnerability. Her life captivated the world, and her death, sudden, violent, and shrouded in mystery,
continues to provoke debate, skepticism, and disbelief. The circumstances surrounding that night in
Paris, from the high-speed chase through the Pont de l’Alma tunnel to the puzzling gaps in the official
investigations, have left behind a trail of contradictions and unanswered questions that have never truly
faded.
In this committee, you will step into the roles of those who shaped, concealed, or revealed the truth.
You may find yourself representing government officials, intelligence operatives, medical authorities,
journalists, or even individuals from the Royal Family. Each portfolio comes with power, bias, and
secrets. It is your task to wield them responsibly or strategically. Remember, in The Red Room, nothing
is certain, and every action has consequences.
Set on 5th December 2006, the eve of the official verdict declaring Diana’s death accidental, this
timeline allows you to question, manipulate, and redefine the events before history was sealed. All
evidence, testimonies, and suspicions remain open for examination. Your challenge lies not merely in
arguing for or against the conspiracy but in uncovering why the truth became so fragmented in the first
place.
We urge you to approach this agenda with the seriousness and nuance it deserves. The line between fact
and fiction, truth and perception, is deliberately blurred in this committee. You must dig deeper,
analyze motives, and question institutions that appear beyond reproach. This is not a conventional
Model UN simulation; this is an intellectual battlefield where morality, influence, and information will
collide.
We expect diplomacy, but we also expect daring.
We expect research, but we also expect reason.
And above all, we expect authenticity, in your arguments, in your strategy, and in your pursuit of truth.
The Red Room is not about reaching a verdict. It is about understanding why, even after decades, the
world still struggles to believe the one it was given. We cannot wait to witness your brilliance,
creativity, and conviction as you step into the heart of one of the greatest modern mysteries. May your
investigation be relentless, your reasoning sharp, and your diplomacy unforgettable.
Crisis Tools
The Red Room at this conference will be following continuous crisis rules of procedure. The
committee’s freeze date, (5th December, 2006) has been set such that the British police inquiry into the
crash is concluding but its findings are not yet public, and no official verdict has been passed.
Therefore, the portfolios representing their corresponding delegations must be prepared to develop the
crisis from the timeline of events leading up to this date, whilst deliberating on both fundamental and
nuanced aspects of the crash and the allegations of conspiracy in itself. Delegates are expected to
straddle between these two continually dynamic and spontaneous tasks to varying degrees dictated by
the environment of committee, and adhere to general rules of procedure pertaining to both GA and
crisis elements:
Provisional Speakers’ Lists and Special Speakers’ Lists
A delegate may choose to raise a motion to enter a Provisional Speakers’ List (PSL), wherein the
Executive Board will select, through their discretion, a certain number of delegations to speak for or
against the agenda (which is specifically the nature of this invasion) in an alternating sequence. Note
that Day 1 will begin with a General Speakers’ List to encourage maximum participation and
inclusivity, while speakers’ lists on the following days are left to the procedural voting outcomes of the
delegates themselves. A motion to enter a Special Speakers’ List (SSL) will be entertained to substitute
classic moderated caucuses, when delegates wish to discuss specifically the nature of the crisis at hand,
in relation to the committee’s crisis updates.
Special Crisis Elements
The extent of legal implications on the state of war in this committee leads to the certainty of
introducing additional, yet valuable crisis elements, including but not limited to: Emergency Special
Summits, trials, and presidential statements (involving any and all types of leadership positions via EB
discretion). Depending on the volatility and progression of the war following committee deliberation
on the agenda, delegates may be expected to write committee directives (bloc-wide or unanimous),
peace treaties or settlements, international licensing agreements, trade charters, arms embargoes and
any other types of documentation that in large part, resolve major existential issues in committee
through their specialisations, in a dynamic manner. In order to further their political agendas in the Red
Room, delegates will be expected to write individual directives, communiques, and press releases of
any kind.
Directives
Directives are objective crisis notes that provide detailed, intuitive, and thoroughly strategized
operations and plans that achieve a particular goal in committee. Directives can be covert (the
operation is secret, its proceedings concealed from the rest of the committee except for the EB), or
overt (all proceedings are known to the committee). Joint directives are co-authored by multiple
portfolios. Delegates are expected to include a brief description of the objective of their operation,
followed by any secondary/ulterior motives if there are any, as well as mission requirements (details of
troops and equipment used in the operation), leading onto a detailed, multistage plan of action,
highlighting every single intricacy that they consider while undertaking said operation. If any of these
elements are missing, the directive will be scrapped. Based on the quality, detail, and reasonability of
these directives, the EB will either fully pass it (meaning the outcome in the crisis is as intended by the
delegate), partially pass it (meaning the outcome in the crisis may be manipulated to effects that work
against the favour of the delegate), or fail it (nothing in the operation occurs in real-time). Delegates
are free to undertake large scale operations in their directives if they detail how each and every phase
occurs over a larger period of time, without which, the crisis timeline will not be accelerated and a
significant portion of the directive’s effect will be nullified.
Communiques
Communiques serve the same purpose as directives, except in letter format, directed to a specific
persona/portfolio that is absent in committee. If a delegate decides to employ the use of a task force, for
instance, to perform a police operation within the scope of civilian affairs, and the head of said task
force is in absentia, the delegate can write a communique to this particular person to achieve certain
goals by the means and resources of the person the communique is directed to. The EB will serve as the
receiver of such communiques, and will respond to them in the personality of the addressed, which
serves as an indication as to whether the communiques pass, partially pass, or fail. Once again,
communiques can be either covert or overt, and can be written jointly. All directives and communiques
are to be sent digitally except for the first directive window, wherein delegates will be asked to draft
their crisis documentation by hand.
Press Releases
A press release is a formal declaration/statement that provides the committee with certain information
from the respective portfolio, that is left to the decision of the committee to be rendered as legitimate,
or fabricated. Press releases are not displays of fact. Delegates can announce anything they wish to
announce in a press release, at the expense of exercising the liberty to bend truths to their advantage.
However, depending on the accuracy and credibility of press releases in the historical timeline, some
can be directly rendered as legitimate sources of information.
The EB will brief delegates on crisis documentation in live committee sessions, but for reference,
delegates may refer to the sample crisis documentations below.
Sample Directive
Operation Taiwan
From : United States of America, Republic of China (Taiwan)
Signed: India, Japan, United Kingdom, Indonesia
To: The EB
Joint Covert Military Operation Directive
OBJECTIVE: To Neutralise the Chinese presence in Taiwan to further prospects of a reverse
invasion and liberation of the Taiwanese mainland claimed by Chinese aggressors, through a
series of coordinated actions by the QUAD-SCC and Allied Powers
Mission Requirements:
- Marine corps stationed in Japan to be transported to Taiwan in less than 24 hours using the
VH-3D Sea King helicopter of the Marine Corps.
- Marine forces to be equipped with M84 stun grenade, the Beretta-M9’s, and M27 IAR and M40
rifles, and M2HB machine guns
- Use of certain aircraft mounted guns such as GAU-12/U 25 mm Gatling gun and the
GAU-16/A .50 Caliber Machine gun, along with vehicle mounted guns such as M240G 7.62 mm
MMGs.
- Aircraft carriers - 2 Gerald R. Ford-class Aircraft Carriers
- 30 F-15 Eagles - 100 in number
- F-230 - 10 units
- F -35 Lightning - 7 units
- Taiwanese troops would carry the following weapons:
1. S-300 launchers
2. SPYDER-MR launchers
3. S-75 Dvina launchers
4. 2K12 Kub launchers
5. ZSU-57-2 mobile anti-aircraft systems
6. IWI Galatz Sniper Rifles
7. Orsis T-5000 M Sniper Rifles
8. WKW Wilks rifles
9. PKM general-purpose machine guns
10. RPK light machine guns
11. RPD general-purpose machine guns
12. M240B light machine guns
13. NSV Heavy Machine Guns
14. M2 Browning Heavy Machine Guns
15. M134 Miniguns
16. Milkor MGL Grenade Launchers
17. M79 Grenade Launchers
18. M2 Mortars
19. M1938 Mortars
20. RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades
21. T-62 tanks
22. 60 BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles
23. M113 armoured personnel carriers
24. M106 Mortar Carriers
25. K-13 (AA-2) air-to-air missiles
26. R-60 (AA-8) air-to-air missiles
27. R-27 (AA-10) air-to-air missiles
Procedure :
I. The USA marine corps, Japan's Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade and Taiwanese
forces collaborate to push the Chinese out of Taiwan, by incorporating the:
A. Creation of beachheads (temporary line of defence, generally on land-sea
boundaries, until further reinforcements come)
B. Use of LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion) for transport of weapons, defence
systems, reinforcements, personnel like Marine Air/Ground Task Force both from
ship to shore and across the beach.
C. Indirect participation of Japan in the above strategies as well, similar to 2013
Senkaku Islands drills.
D. Marine Semi-guerrilla warfare, moving Chinese troops towards the Northern Coast,
until a full-fledged retreat to the Chinese shore occurs.
II. Airforce: The Japanese and American Air Forces shall station air troops in Taiwan. This is to
prevent the Chinese from entering Taiwan and also threaten the opposition’s entry into
China.
III. The USA will send a carrier strike group headed by the USS Gerald R. Ford, carrying 10
F35 Lightning II along with & 4 B-52 Bombers from the 2nd Bomb Wing of the US Air
Force. Using radar imagery from technology onboard the Gerald R. Ford, along with
satellite imagery, the US Navy will ascertain locations for the Chinese bases in the Paracel
islands. Following this, all B52 bombers on the Gerald R. Ford will take off for the
Paracels & will bomb all Chinese military installations. 7 F35 Lightning IIs present
onboard will provide them with reconnaissance backup & can help the Bombers complete
their missions, as per the accord of the commanding officer of the Gerald R. Ford.
IV. The British Navy’s strike group, led by HMS Queen Elizabeth, shall move Northeast of the
Paracel islands, following the operation undertaken by the Japanese and American air
forces and the Taiwan front of the blockade at Truro Shoal. This shall be transformed as a
base for future crises thus increasing the allied forces’ presence northwards in the South
China- Sea, essentially driving Chinese presence slowly out of the region in that
hemisphere altogether. All formerly deployed Southeast Asian battalions will assist this
strike group.
A. 10 The Hsiung Feng II (HF-2) anti-ship missiles which lock onto the target
developed by the technology of the TMCS will be supplied to the aforementioned
troops, developed by Taiwan to stall the Chinese fleets off the Taiwanese shore.
V. The Indian Navy will make its way through the Malacca Strait to the Naval Base Heracleo
Alano in the Philippines on the 2nd of January 2022 at 5AM IST. 5 Indian frigates will be
on way to the mentioned naval base. INS Shivalik, INS Tarkash, INS Trikand, INS Beas
and INS Betwa will carry SA-N-12 surface-to-air missiles through 3S-90 missile launchers
working in partnership with the stationed frigates.
VI. The Japanese, American, and British Navy along with their Airforce that have yet to be
utilised by the completion of the pushback, will be stationed at the Eastern Taiwanese
cities of: Dawu, Taimali, the Dulan Forest and Coastline,Chenggong, Changbin, Fengbin,
Lanyu AND Hualien. The Indian Navy shall be hosted in the Spratly archipelago claimed
by Taiwan with support from the American blockade that has indefinitely suspended
Chinese naval operations and trade, in case the invasion provokes/emboldens Chinese
forces to divert the alliance’s attention back to the South China Sea for a flank invasion of
Taiwan.
Sample Communique
From: Van Tien Dung, Chief of General Staff of the People’s Army of Vietnam
To: Vo Nguyen Giap, Commander in Chief, People’s Army of Vietnam
Respected General,
Though our invasion through the Viet Cong was successfully initiated, a colonial revolt from the
US has held us back, unable to seize Quang Tri. Civilians continue to evacuate through the Mu
Gia pass, and Guerrilla training is halted and postponed.
As my Commander in Chief, I urge you once again, to fully resort to an invasion from the PAVN
without smaller, poorly coordinated infantry attacks:
- Prepare for the mobilisation of ten light infantry divisions (19800), twenty ranger battalions
(81st Group), four armoured cavalry groups (2200), along with airborne 32nd and 85th
battalion regiments.
- Deploy VPAF (Air Force) Mig-17 fighter jets from bases in Shenzhen and Hainan Island
(est. 1963), through a press release to the CCP Ministry of Defense, via any Secretary
member to the VPA Sub-Bureau of Intelligence.
An already built tunnel network from the PAVN embassy in Phuoc Long to Saigon (20.25) miles
constituting the “Iron Triangle” in the Cu Chi District (est. 1965) will house the regiments and
divisions for however long they need to be sustained, with ample food, water, and fundamental
essentials.
Time the arrival of airborne fleets, such that they fly through Laos, directly Southbound to the
Mekong Delta, after which a rendezvous operation should be in order. En route to Saigon,
conduct raids on the Bien Hoa and Tan Son Nhut minor US bases to damage artillery reserves,
using the II-28 twin engine bombers at the PAVN’s disposal.
3 hours afterwards, launch a skirmish across guarded Saigon outskirts, near Xuan Loc. The
strength of the US Army doesn’t match the quantity of PAVN troops at this juncture.
Civilian casualties are substantially unlikely, as the PAVN is a trained military, unlike the Viet
Cong. The invasion will continue directly until we lay siege to Saigon.
In all truth and sincerity,
Van Tien Dung
Please keep in mind that neither of these samples are specific to the agenda. They serve as a
collective guide for one to understand formatting, procedure, and the requirement for detail in
each type of documentation that is sent to the Executive Board. It does NOT serve as a template
for extracting content that is in any way whatsoever related to this committee’s agenda.
Furthermore, kindly note that a session on Crisis Rules of Procedure, key elements of a Crisis
Committee, and other notable aspects to be considered during the conference, may be held on the
day of committee before formal session, in order to clear selective doubts and confusion
regarding nuances in ROP. Crisis documentation, specifically directives, communiques, and press
releases, will also be revisited in this session.
NO PRE-WRITTEN CRISIS DOCUMENTATION WILL BE CONSIDERED.
Timeline of Events
1996
August 28th: The divorce of Prince Charles and Princess Diana is finalized, officially ending their
15-year marriage.
1997
July: Princess Diana begins a relationship with Dodi Fayed, the son of Egyptian billionaire Mohamed
Al-Fayed. They spend time together on his family's yacht, the Jonikal, in the South of France.
August 30th: Diana and Dodi fly from Sardinia to Paris. Later that evening, they dine in the Imperial
Suite at the Ritz Hotel, which is owned by Dodi's father.
August 31st (early morning): To avoid the paparazzi, Diana and Dodi leave the Ritz Hotel from a rear
entrance in a Mercedes S280, driven by the hotel's deputy head of security, Henri Paul. Bodyguard
Trevor Rees-Jones is in the front passenger seat.
Approximately 12:23 AM: The Mercedes, traveling at high speed, crashes into the 13th pillar of the
Pont de l'Alma tunnel. Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul are killed instantly. Diana is critically injured but
alive. Trevor Rees-Jones is severely injured but survives.
Approximately 12:32 AM: Emergency services arrive at the crash scene.
1:41 AM: The ambulance carrying Princess Diana departs from the crash scene for the hospital.
2:06 AM: The ambulance arrives at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital.
4:00 AM: After extensive efforts to save her, Princess Diana is pronounced dead.
September 1st: French authorities announce that tests show Henri Paul had a blood alcohol level more
than three times the legal limit in France.
September 6th: Princess Diana's funeral is held at Westminster Abbey and is watched by an estimated
2.5 billion people worldwide.
1998
February: Mohamed Al-Fayed publicly claims that the crash was not an accident and was orchestrated
by the British establishment.
1999
September 3rd: A two-year French judicial investigation, led by Judge Hervé Stephan, concludes that
the crash was caused by the excessive speed of the vehicle and the intoxicated state of the driver, Henri
Paul. The report clears the paparazzi of direct responsibility for the crash.
2000
July: Mohamed Al-Fayed loses a High Court battle in the UK for a joint inquest into the deaths of
Diana and Dodi.
2002
April: France's highest court upholds the dismissal of manslaughter charges against the photographers
involved.
2003
October: Three photographers who took pictures at the crash scene go on trial in Paris, accused of
invading the couple's privacy. They are later cleared in November.
Publication of a note: Diana's butler, Paul Burrell, publishes a note he claims the princess wrote in
October 1996, alleging that Prince Charles was "planning 'an accident' in my car."
2004
January 6th: The Royal Coroner, Michael Burgess, asks the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir
John Stevens, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of a conspiracy to murder. This investigation
became known as "Operation Paget."
April: Sir John Stevens and his team travel to Paris to re-enact the final journey of the Mercedes.
August: A French court orders a new investigation into allegations that the blood and drug tests on
Henri Paul were falsified.
2005
July: The wrecked Mercedes is transported to the UK for forensic examination by the Operation Paget
team.
December: As part of the Operation Paget inquiry, Prince Charles is questioned by Lord Stevens.
2006
February: Three photographers are convicted of breaching France's privacy laws for taking photos at
the crash site and are given a symbolic fine.
September 7th: Baroness Butler-Sloss is appointed as Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household to
oversee the inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi.
November: Claims emerge that the blood samples tested did not belong to Henri Paul, but subsequent
DNA testing ordered by French authorities appears to confirm their authenticity.
Case Studies
MOHAMED AL-FAYED
How does a father's grief curdle into a decade-long war against an empire? The answer for Mohamed
Al-Fayed is found in the wreckage of a Parisian tunnel. He is a self-made Egyptian billionaire and a
towering figure in international business. As an outsider to the British establishment, his life became
irrevocably tangled with the Royal Family in the summer of 1997. That was when his eldest son, Dodi,
began a romance with Princess Diana. For Al-Fayed, the relationship represented a potential union of
his family with the very pinnacle of British society.
The deaths of Dodi and Diana, however, transformed Al-Fayed from a proud father into a relentless
campaigner. His initial grief quickly hardened into suspicion. And by February 1998, he was publicly
claiming the crash was not an accident but a meticulously planned assassination. Consequently, he
asserted that the British security services, namely MI6, had carried out the murder on the orders of the
Royal Family. This was the opening salvo in a long, expensive, and deeply personal war which he
would wage against the British establishment.
Thus, in the years leading to our 2006 freeze date, Mohamed Al-Fayed has almost single-handedly kept
the conspiracy narrative alive. He has spent millions of pounds funding his own team of private
investigators. He wants to uncover evidence he claims was ignored, or simply suppressed, by the
French authorities. Indeed, he has launched numerous legal challenges in both French and British
courts to contest the official findings and force a new, public inquiry.
The central pillar of his argument is, of course, that the British establishment could not tolerate the idea
of Diana marrying a Muslim man. He often refers to them as "the Dracula family". He has further
alleged that Diana was pregnant with Dodi's child at the time of her death. These claims, he insists,
provided the motive for a state-sponsored assassination masterminded by Prince Philip. As of
December 5, 2006, the official police inquiry, "Operation Paget," is still underway, and he views its
eventual outcome with deep suspicion, expecting nothing less than an establishment cover-up.
SIR JOHN STEVENS & OPERATION PAGET
When a nation’s grief gives way to suspicion, who can be trusted to find the truth? Enter Sir John
Stevens. He is one of Britain's most distinguished police officers and served as the Commissioner of
London's Metropolitan Police from 2000 to 2005. A career detective known for his methodical and
dispassionate approach, his name became synonymous with the official British investigation into
Princess Diana's death. This inquiry was codenamed "Operation Paget" and was formally initiated on
January 6, 2004. Its purpose was not to reinvestigate the crash itself, which fell under French
jurisdiction. It was to conduct a Herculean inquiry into the extensive conspiracy allegations which had
emerged since 1999.
Under his command, Operation Paget became one of the most comprehensive inquiries ever
undertaken by the Metropolitan Police. A dedicated team of officers have spent nearly three years
meticulously examining every facet of the conspiracy claims. The investigation involved reviewing
hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, including the entire 6,000-page French case file. And his
team conducted 300 witness interviews. This included a landmark session with Prince Charles in
December 2005 to question him about the note Diana had written.
Furthermore, the inquiry employed cutting-edge forensic science to re-examine key pieces of evidence.
The wreckage of the Mercedes S280 was transported to the UK for a detailed analysis. The blood
samples of the driver, Henri Paul, were subjected to DNA testing. The Paget team even traveled to
Paris to conduct a full-scale reconstruction of Diana's final journey.
As of the freeze date of December 5, 2006, the work of Operation Paget is nearing its conclusion but is
still officially ongoing. Its findings have not been made public, and its final report is not an accessible
document to anyone outside the investigation. The objective of the inquiry, along with its many
interviews and forensic tests, are to provide definitive answers, but for now, those answers remain
unknown.
PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH
What, you might ask, is the price of silence? As the husband of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, the
Duke of Edinburgh, has been a central and unyielding figure in the British monarchy. He is a staunch
traditionalist and a fierce protector of the Crown. His relationship with Princess Diana was known to be
complex. While early correspondence showed a supportive tone, the relationship became severely
strained. This followed her acrimonious separation from Prince Charles and her public criticisms of the
Royal Family.
In the aftermath of the crash, however, Prince Philip was cast in an unwelcome and deeply damaging
role. He was the alleged mastermind of an assassination plot. This accusation was levelled relentlessly
by Mohamed Al-Fayed. He publicly accused the Duke of ordering MI6 to murder Diana and Dodi
simply to prevent the princess from marrying a Muslim. Al-Fayed claimed to possess cruel letters from
Philip to Diana, painting the Duke, a pillar of the establishment, as the arch-villain in a royal
conspiracy. And while letters between them did exist, Al-Fayed never produced any as evidence which
were explicitly threatening. The correspondence that did surface was described by some as merely
"derogatory," not murderous.
The strategy of the Royal Family has been unwavering. They remain silent, maintain dignity, and trust
in the justice system. Embodying the mantra "never complain, never explain," Prince Philip has never
publicly responded to Al-Fayed's claims. The monarchy's position is that engaging with such
accusations would only give them a legitimacy they do not deserve. This silence, however, has been
interpreted by some, perhaps unsurprisingly, as evidence of guilt. As the Operation Paget inquiry
continues, Prince Philip and the Royal Family stand firm.
PAUL BURRELL
Can a servant's loyalty and a public's curiosity ever truly align? For a decade, Paul Burrell served as
Princess Diana's butler. This position placed him in a unique circle of trust. Following her divorce, he
became one of her closest confidants, a man she affectionately called her "rock." He was privy to her
most private moments, her fears, and her hopes for a new life. A quiet witness.
However, Burrell’s transition from loyal servant to controversial public figure began with his 2001 trial
for allegedly stealing items from Diana's estate. The trial collapsed dramatically. It was revealed that he
had told the Queen he was merely safeguarding the items. This episode set the stage for his most
explosive contribution.
In 2003, Burrell published a memoir, A Royal Duty. Its most sensational revelation was a note he
claimed the princess had written in October 1996. In the note she wrote that "This particular phase in
my life is the most dangerous." And that "my husband is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure
and serious head injury..." This document, you see, instantly became a cornerstone of the conspiracy
theories. Presented as direct evidence from Diana herself, it seemed to confirm the worst fears. While
Burrell maintains his actions were motivated by a desire to defend Diana's memory, he has faced
intense criticism for betraying her confidence for personal profit. As of 2006, Paul Burrell remains a
deeply ambiguous figure.
JUDGE HERVÉ STEPHAN
In a case defined by emotion, what role is left for cold, hard fact? As the senior French investigating
magistrate, it was Judge Hervé Stephan who was entrusted with the monumental task of leading the
first official inquiry into the death of Princess Diana. Because the crash occurred on French soil, the
investigation fell under French jurisdiction. Judge Stephan's methodical, forensic-based approach
would come to define the initial official narrative. A man of the law.
After an exhaustive 18-month investigation, Judge Stephan delivered his final conclusions on
September 3, 1999. The report was unequivocal. This was a tragic accident with a simple cause. The
investigation concluded that the driver, Henri Paul, was under the influence of alcohol and prescription
drugs. And he lost control of the Mercedes due to its excessive speed. This conclusion stood in stark
contrast to the spiralling narratives of intrigue.
Critically, Judge Stephan’s report officially dismissed the more sensational theories. It found no
evidence of a criminal conspiracy, no mysterious second car, and no indication that the car's brakes had
been tampered with. While he was critical of the paparazzi, he legally cleared them of having directly
caused the crash. And yet, in the years following, his findings came under sustained attack. This was
particularly true from Mohamed Al-Fayed, who accused the French investigation of being a cover-up.
Despite this, the French judiciary has consistently stood by the conclusions of the Stephan report. As
we approach the freeze date, his findings are the bedrock which all other inquiries must contend with.