The Savile Comparison: A Controversial Argument in the Al Fayed Lawsuit
The 2008 inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed was marked by a series of dramatic and contentious moments. One of the most controversial, and arguably harmful, elements was the introduction of Jimmy Savile as a potential perpetrator in the case.
The Argument:
Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi's father, claimed that the couple's deaths were orchestrated by the British establishment, specifically by Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who allegedly orchestrated their assassination. He alleged that Diana and Dodi were deliberately killed because they were planning to marry and the Royal Family didn't approve of their relationship.
As part of his case, Al Fayed sought to establish a "cover-up" by suggesting that Diana had been pregnant with Dodi's child and that her death was staged to hide this fact. To support his claims, he introduced the name of Jimmy Savile, a high-profile British celebrity, known for his work with charities and access to influential individuals.
Al Fayed's legal team argued that Savile's reputation as a "pedophile" and his connections to the Royal Family created a "climate of fear" that prevented witnesses from speaking out. This, they claimed, was similar to the environment Diana allegedly faced before her death.
The Fallout:
The Savile comparison, while ultimately deemed "unnecessary" by the inquest jury, caused considerable pain and distress to the families of Savile's victims. It also cast a shadow on Diana's legacy, reducing her complex and tragic death to a conspiracy theory.
The Inquest's Decision:
The jury ultimately rejected Al Fayed's claims, concluding that Diana and Dodi died in a car crash caused by the driver, Henri Paul, who was under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs. They also concluded that there was no evidence of any conspiracy and that Diana's death was a tragic accident.
The Impact:
The Savile comparison, while ultimately discredited, highlighted the dangers of using uncorroborated allegations and sensationalism to build a case. It also served as a stark reminder of the potential for exploitation and damage when high-profile figures are involved in legal proceedings.
The lasting effects of the Savile comparison continue to reverberate through the public consciousness, particularly in the context of how allegations against individuals are investigated and reported. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the responsibility of legal teams and media outlets to act with sensitivity and avoid perpetuating damaging narratives.
