Newsweek magazine (Oct 20th 1997 edition) still seem happy to spread misinformation about the 'accident' which killed Diana. Entitled "The Diana File", they refer to a six-inch thick dossier on the crash, compiled by the Prefecture of Police in Paris. Entitled "Accident Mortel de la Circulation Date 31/8/97 Heure 00h30." it allegedly contains police reports, sketches and confiscated paparazzos photographs.

If Newsweek is to believed, the report claims that the paparazzi didn't appear on the scene until two minutes after the accident - and claims they were first on the scene. If it took them two minutes, travelling on motor cycles, then they were not as close behind the car as first suggested in the media. Simple calculations will reveal that if the paparazzi were travelling at 30mph (a very conservative estimate, if they were supposedly chasing the car), then if they took two minutes to arrive on the scene they would be a mile away when the crash occurred - hardly hassling the driver. If they were supposed to be 'overtaking' and 'dicing' with the car (itself supposedly speeding) then in two minutes they could have been several miles away - even more suspicious.

Even clearing the paparazzi from causing the crash (which I didn't believe they caused in the first place), it still seems unlikely that they were a mile away when the crash occurred. Again, it seems like there is a clash of 'witness' reports. IF assassins were following the car on high powered motorcycles, then it stands to reason that the 'powers that be' would want to muddy the reports of what happened at the scene of the crash. By spreading rumours that no one arrived for two minutes, could deflect attention from investigating events that occurred WITHIN those vital two minutes.

According to Newsweek magazine, itself reporting the Paris' Police file, television cameras arrived on the scene a mere nine minutes after the accident. However, it then states that the Paris police chief didn't arrive until 32 minutes after the crash, and Diana wasn't placed into the ambulance until "a full 52 minutes after the emergency workers arrived". The trip in the ambulance took 43 minutes, despite it only being 6km. This means the ambulance averaged a speed of 4.3km per hour. This concerts to 2.6mph - which is a slow walking speed. Again, the figures don't add up. Has the official report been manipulated, or are these genuine figures?

Newsweek also report on the controversy over her last spoken words, if any. Different witnesses are at odds as to whether she spoke, or was even capable of speaking.

Newsweek also report that the French police are hunting for a white Fiat Uno car - believed to have played a vital role in the accident - as I claimed four weeks before this was made public and reported!

The puzzling thing about this issue of Newsweek is that when you analysis their article there are a couple of paragraphs which seem self-contradictory. Initially it is claimed that the paparazzi didn't arrive for two minutes, which places them at least a mile away when the accident took place (see above). However, later in the article it claims they were only 200 meters behind the car, which would have them arrive on the scene virtually instantly. Newsweek then go on to suggest that perhaps the Fiat Uno contained photographers as well.

There is also an report that Mark Butt, a Paris restaurateur, saw a motorcycle emerge from the other side of the tunnel, but then made a u-turn and went back into the tunnel. Could this be futher evidence of an assassin on a high-powered motorcycle, ensuring that the crash occurred at the required place and time?

I believe this article poses more questions than answers them.