Main Index

First page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

The key witness in Granada's fantasy was a certain François Levistre (who had already been questioned and dismissed as a crank by the French police), who claimed to have been driving his Ford hatchback ahead of Diana's Mercedes as it entered and negotiated the Pont D' Alma underpass.  He said that he remembered clearly seeing the Mercedes being overtaken by a weaving paparazzi motorcyclist and pillion-rider, then seeing a blinding flash, after which he saw the Mercedes run into the support pillar.  Levistre supposedly saw all this happen through his rear view mirror.
    The presenter suggested, archly, that this flash was akin to the kind of blinding flash that is produced by a stun-device used by security forces 'like the British' security forces.  The programme then put forward the proposition that this alleged motorcyclist and pillion rider overtook the Mercedes on the bend into the down-ramp and then, once it had sped past the Mercedes, the pillion rider had turned round and blinded driver Henri Paul with the anti-terrorist flash stun-device.
    Two months later the programme's credibility was vaporised.  On 2 August 1998, the British newspaper the Sunday People printed a front-page story by Rachael Bletchly and Pascale Palmer, focusing on a forthcoming book on the death of Diana by Nick Farrell.  It concerned an interview with the same 'key witness' on whose testimony Belfield's documentary had hung its whole premise: François Levistre.

The People's headline screamed: "I CAUSED DIANA DEATH CRASH".  The story began: 'A FRENCH motorist has sensationally admitted last night that his reckless high-speed driving was a major factor in the car crash which killed Princess Diana.  François Levistre has confessed: "Thinking about it carefully I now understand how I could have helped cause the crash.  "I was close behind the car, as much as 10 metres, and my driving may have caused it to swerve and lose control." '
    Levistre's new story could not have been more different to the one he gave on the programme.  His new version is that he emerged in his Ford hatchback from a slip road just ahead of the down ramp, at speed, when the Mercedes and a white Fiat Uno were passing.  This caused the Fiat to swerve, which in turn caused Henri Paul to lose control of the Mercedes and collide into the post.  The new version has no mention of flash stun-devices.  No mention of Levistre being ahead of the Mercedes and observing, through his mirror, the Mercedes' headlights dance with the headlight of a motorcycle. 
    So instead of a conspiracy involving MI5/MI6/the Duke of Edinburgh/Mossad/Barbara Cartland etc, the amended version centres on a simple combination of two reckless speeding drivers, one of whom was drunk, coming together at the wrong time.

The Sunday People, 2 August 1998.  Francois Levistre, Granada TV's key witness in Secrets Behind the Crash, gives a different account of the accident to the one he gave on the programme

Whatever the veracity of this new story, one thing is certain.  Belfield had crafted his documentary out of total fantasy, which a commissioning editor on a British network television channel then bought and broadcast. 
    Which is exactly what he did the year earlier for Channel 4's Dispatches, in league with The Guardian.

And there lies a good story that Britain's newspapers and documentary makers really should investigate (if they had the courage).  It concerns the role of Richard Belfield, and Mohamed 'Al' Fayed.  For it is rather strange that Belfield should be Fayed's mouthpiece a second time, after having produced The Guardian's 'cash for questions' documentary that gave Fayed a platform to spout his false allegations against Neil Hamilton.  For example, it would be interesting to learn whether Belfield received money from Fayed for producing these two programmes. 
    Another avenue involving Belfield that investigative journalists could explore is the case of the curious interweaving links between Fayed and: Granada Television; The Guardian; and Fulcrum.  Because Granada TV's first 'Fayed factual' (based on Fayed's allegations against Tory minister Jonathan Aitken) was co-produced with Granada's friends at The Guardian; whereas Fulcrum Production's first 'Fayed factual' (based on Fayed's allegations against Tory minister Neil Hamilton) was co-produced with Fulcrum's friends at The Guardian; whilst Fulcrum's second 'Fayed Factual' (based on Fayed's allegations of an Establishment conspiracy to murder his son and Diana the Princess of Wales), was co-produced with The Guardian's friends at Granada again.  Which is where La Ronde began.
    This means that, of all the TV production companies, newspapers and TV broadcast companies, the same ones from each sector were involved in producing the three TV documentaries which promoted Fayed's allegations.  And all three organisations were involved in the production of two programmes, which were co-productions with each of the other two organisations.
    Of course, it could be just a bizarre coincidence that Granada Television's factual programmes department, The Guardian, and Fulcrum Productions are the only organisations to have produced programmes based on Fayed's allegations.  Yet, when it actually comes to examining Fayed's erratic behaviour and outlandish lies and vendettas, The Guardian and Granada TV have displayed a curious lack of interest.  One is left pondering whether The Guardian's and Granada's journalists would have been as eager in becoming Fayed's mouthpieces if he had turned on his sympathisers/allies in the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties.

Interestingly, the controller of news and current affairs at ITV who preceded Steve Anderson, and who commissioned the World in Action programme on Jonathan Aitken, was Marion Bowman, who is the wife of Richard Belfield, who, of course, produced the other two Fayed-based documentaries.  Also, Steve Anderson, who commissioned from Granada TV Fulcrum's Fayed-based documentary on Diana's death, is the brother of Jeff Anderson, who is Granada's new chief of World in Action.
    However, Britain's television industry is incestuous, therefore this is not unusual.  But what cannot be doubted is that if any (Conservative) Member of Parliament had such relationships and conflicts of interest, The Guardian; World in Action and Fulcrum would be crawling all over themselves to co-produce a television documentary about it.

Previous page

Continued overleaf