Princess Diana’s driver Henri Paul was labeled “drunk,” but CCTV from the Ritz shows him walking steady, head high, keys in hand. His blood test suggested heavy intoxication — yet colleagues said he hadn’t touched a drink all night. Two samples, one man, and a mystery that never aligned

Henri Paul’s Blood Test Riddle — A Drunk Driver or a Scapegoat?

On August 31, 1997, Henri Paul, the deputy head of security at the Ritz Hotel, drove a black Mercedes S280 carrying Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones into Paris’s Pont de l’Alma tunnel, where it crashed at 105 km/h, killing all but Rees-Jones. Official reports labeled Paul as heavily intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level three times France’s legal limit, a key factor in the tragedy. Yet, CCTV footage from the Ritz shows Paul walking steadily, head high, keys in hand, moments before driving. Colleagues, including Ritz staff, insisted he hadn’t touched alcohol that night. Discrepancies between two blood samples and conflicting accounts fuel a persistent mystery: Was Henri Paul drunk, or was he scapegoated in a narrative that never fully aligned?

The Night of the Crash

By August 1997, Diana, aged 36, was a global icon, free from royal duties but hounded by paparazzi. On August 30, she and Dodi Fayed arrived in Paris, dining at the Ritz Hotel, owned by Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al-Fayed. Facing a media swarm, they planned a discreet exit. At 12:20 AM, Paul, unexpectedly called back to drive, left with the group, speeding to evade photographers. The Mercedes clipped a white Fiat Uno and crashed into the tunnel’s 13th pillar at 12:23 AM. Diana died at 4:00 AM from a severed pulmonary vein; Paul and Dodi died instantly.

CCTV footage from the Ritz, reviewed in the 2008 UK inquest, shows Paul at 10 PM and again before departure, appearing composed—tying his shoes, walking briskly, and holding keys with no visible impairment. Colleagues, including night manager François Tendil, testified Paul showed no signs of drinking, having been off-duty earlier and returning only to drive.

The Blood Test Controversy

French forensic tests, conducted hours after the crash, reported Paul’s blood alcohol level at 1.74 g/L—over three times France’s 0.5 g/L limit—and detected traces of antidepressants and antipsychotics (fluoxetine and tiapride). A second sample, taken from a different site, corroborated these findings, leading the 1999 French inquiry and 2008 inquest to conclude Paul’s intoxication caused the crash, alongside paparazzi pursuit.

However, discrepancies emerged. Mohamed Al-Fayed, alleging an MI6 assassination, claimed the samples were tampered with or swapped. The first sample, from the chest cavity, risked contamination due to post-mortem blood pooling, while the second, from a femoral vein, was more reliable but still questioned. Carbon monoxide levels in one sample (20.7%) suggested poisoning or lab error, as Paul showed no symptoms like disorientation. Operation Paget, the 2004-2006 UK probe into 175 conspiracy claims, found no tampering but noted procedural flaws in French autopsies, including unlabeled samples.

Colleagues’ accounts clashed with toxicology. Ritz bar staff and Dodi’s driver, Philippe Dourneau, said Paul drank only non-alcoholic beverages during his shift. The bar tab showed two Ricard drinks, but no witness confirmed Paul consumed them. His steady demeanor on CCTV, captured minutes before driving, contradicts the 1.74 g/L level, equivalent to eight drinks, which typically causes slurring or stumbling.

Conspiracy Theories and Doubts

Mohamed Al-Fayed’s claims of a cover-up—fueled by Diana’s 1995 Panorama interview alleging surveillance—pointed to sample manipulation to deflect blame. Some theorists speculated Paul was drugged, citing the antidepressants, though his medical history confirmed prescriptions for stress. The untraced Fiat Uno and absent tunnel CCTV (due to 1997’s analog tech limits) added to suspicions. Operation Paget dismissed conspiracies, affirming Paul’s intoxication, but acknowledged French lab errors, like initial carbon monoxide misreadings, later corrected.

The “two samples, one man” riddle persists due to proportionality bias: Diana’s death seems too monumental for a drunk driver’s error. Sealed French files (some until 2082) and Paul’s autopsy irregularities fuel distrust. Yet, no evidence supports deliberate sabotage.

The Human Cost and Legacy

Paul, 41, was a trusted Ritz employee, not a habitual drunk. His family, devastated, challenged the narrative, citing his professionalism. The crash’s aftermath saw paparazzi fined but not charged with manslaughter, prompting UK press reforms. Diana’s legacy endures through the Diana Award and her sons’ advocacy, with Harry’s 2025 tabloid lawsuits echoing her media struggles.

The CCTV’s steady Paul and the blood tests’ damning verdict remain at odds. Whether lab error, contamination, or truth, the mystery underscores the tragedy’s complexity—a driver, a princess, and a night where clarity remains elusive.