I work right beside the Pont de l’Alma where Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul died in that infamous car crash. It’s a very ordinary underpass, and probably disappoints the tourists who still come to see the accident site. It’s also much too dangerous to walk into the underpass, so most visitors leave their mark on a superbly tacky and incongruous sculpture across the road. (The sculpture is a brassy looking ‘eternal flame’ meant to symbolise American-French friendship, and probably deserves a post of its own.)
Sometimes, when walking past observing the cars whizzing down the ramp, I wonder about the tens of thousands of vehicles that have emerged at the other side, and the one that didn’t. But anyway, aside from presenting the occasional minor moral conundrum of whether to give directions to tourists who ask where Diana died (I always do - it’s vulgar and morbid, I know, but they’re so helpless and lost, and are always cheered up to be told where the three people died.), the bridge and underpass is unremarkable.
But yesterday at lunch time the traffic was funnelled into one lane and a line of camera vans and police trucks was parked along the road nearby. About half a dozen police were standing in the middle of the underpass entrance, and various serious and important looking people were walking around. I assumed it was a well-connected documentary crew, or possibly some sort of follow up to the french investigation of the crash.
But today’s Guardian tells me that no less a person than Sir John Stevens was there doing his own investigating into Diana’s death. Also present was the coroner leading the British inquest. Stephens said afterwards that the tunnel was “narrower than I expected, and the gradient steeper”. I found it reassuring that a man in such an elevated role still thinks it’s essential to do some groundwork himself.
Bizaarely, the Guardian’s angle on it all was to quote a victims of crime group who think the whole investigation is a waste of money. I can’t help thinking that if the inquest was not being taken so seriously by the head of the Metropolitan police, the Guardian would be clamouring for a proper investigation to lay bare the ‘cover up’. But instead it implies that Stevens and co were off on a PR stunt/jolly and leaves unchallenged the assertion by Clive Elliott of the Victims of Crime Trust that “If there is to be any priority, it should be given to those still suffering from the effects of crime.”
Em, no. The priority of the police is investigating crime, not compensating its victims. I’m very glad we live in relatively luxurious times when the focus - for example, in rape cases - is shifting more to protecting and advocating for victims of crime. But the first and clearest priority of law enforcement agencies, and the government in general, is preventing and detecting crime.
These days, NGOs are just as media savvy as other players, and the plug for a resource centre for victims of crime comes wrapped in a soundbite that makes a spurious claim to know a dead person’s mind and the predictable comparison of apples and oranges so beloved of single interest groups;
“I am sure Princess Diana was the sort of person who would agree with that sentiment (the statement that victims should be the police’s priority). We have been trying to raise £1m for a resource centre for victims. If Sir John gave us half the money being spent on this inquiry it would keep the centre going for 10 years.”
No again. Diana herself let loose a hundred later conspiracy theories by documenting her own private fears that an attempt would be made on her life. I don’t claim to read the minds of the dead either, but I suspect she might have preferred a thorough investigation into her own suspicious death to the setting up of a resource centre. But of course the comparison is completely bogus. Though writers of press releases like to suggest that ministers gleefully decide to spend money on cruise missiles at the expense of paediatric intensive care units, I think we all know that Stevens cannot choose to shut down a public inquiry and hand the cash over to victim support. It’s a fatuous point and a cheap shot that adds nothing to our understanding of the investigation or its context.
Of course it’s true that much more money is being spent to investigate Diana’s death than any other criminal investigation. And it’s probably true that the outcome of the investigation will be inconclusive. But it’s still essential that the police fully investigate a death which is of enormous public interest - and I mean public interest in the strict sense, not the satisfaction of prurient curiosity.
But there has already been an extensive and thorough investigation into Diana’a death. Do you have any reason to believe the French investigation was flawed?
“and I mean public interest in the strict sense, not the satisfaction of prurient curiosity.”
But what is the strict public interest being served by the investigation? They drove too fast, they died, end of story. Does anyone really think that MI7 (the really secret one) killed Diana because she was about to go on holiday to the Bah… er, about to reveal some shocking truth? And if someone does think that, are they going to be convinced by a government inquiry? Where is the public non-prurient interest?
“[W]hat is the strict public interest being served by the investigation? . . . Does anyone really think that MI7 (the really secret one) killed Diana . . . ?”
Millions of people DO belive that, strange as it may seem. A thorough investigation might restore a little credibility to the criminal justice system.
But surely anyone capable of carrying out (and keeping secret) such a plot is also capable of subverting an official investigation? (And wouldn’t a British investigation be more easily compromised by a French one?)
There are some people who are going to obsess about the dead blonde whatever you do. If you want to restore the credibility of the criminal justice system among the rest of the population - ie, those amenable to persuasion - there are other cases to investigate.
The little I know about Diana, having lived in England throughout her celebrity and studiously avoided it, entirely suggests that she might have endorsed the claim that victims should be the police’s priority. You note in response to that inference that she pronounced herself a target. It is no revelation in logic to note that the one does not preclude the other.
I think there is legitimate public interest in a British inquiry into Diana’s death. She was, after all, the mother of the future head of state and she did die in suspicious circumstances.
Personally, I think it was plain bad luck, but a
lot of people don’t. At the very least, establishing to any reasonable person’s satisfaction that Diana was not ordered killed by the royal family would be a public services. Not least because it could kill a generation’s worth of Sunday supplement stories…
I also think that an investigation led by someone of John Steven’s caliber and experience (especially in Northern Ireland) would carry a certain weight amongst the less lunatic of conspiracy theorists. Mohammed Fayed has raised some credible doubts about the French investigation and its pinning the blame entirely on the driver. On the whole, I think the man is away with the fairies, but there is a lot of value in a British inquiry establishing the facts and also explicitly weighing the various conspiracy theories.
But John Isbell’s right - it is kind of silly to impute any interest or preference of a dead person regarding current events. (especially when you’re giving out about someones else doing it…)
“At the very least, establishing to any reasonable person’s satisfaction that Diana was not ordered killed by the royal family would be a public services. “
See, this is the thing. I don’t think there are any reasonable people who currently in any doubt about this. And the Sunday supplements are going to have stories about Diana - how did she die? who did she shag? how much did the other royals not get on with her? - until hell freezes over, regardless of how many inquiries are held, and what they find.
It’s my firm belief that Princess Di was murdered in cold blood by the commemorative plate industry.
I hasten to point out that tomk’s view is his own, and not endorsed by CT; our official policy is that you don’t fuck with the commemorative plate industry
The French over-concern with esthetics deserves a large part of the blame. The steel horizontal guard rails found on many American highways are admittedly deficient in the looks department but they do prevent careening vehicles from striking lethal obstacles like those vertical posts in the Paris tunnel.
In the 1960s a dam in Provence collapsed killing 200 or so French. The subsequent investigation concluded that the French designers and engineers were more concerned with constructing a “graceful” dam than with one that would survive a flood.
Princess who?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review