When Scotland Yard Comes Knocking

LOGICALLY, given the media relevance of the tape produced by Mohamed Al-Fayed’s attorneys, we unveiled the truth surrounding a bodyguard who mysteriously vanished and was exiled from British services to Australia—never to be heard from again.

I was particularly attentive to what I suspected were intercepted phone calls from Mr. Al-Fayed, who regarded me as “on his side” in his battle against the British Crown and the establishment, making statements that were not only direct but occasionally highly insulting.

Years passed, and then came the criminal investigation by Scotland Yard. Under judicial orders, they were legally bound to conduct public inquiries into every British citizen who died in accidents or under mysterious circumstances outside of England, which had to occur within a specific timeframe—ten years. 

The inquiry was entrusted to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord John Stevens, focusing on allegations of concealment and conspiracy involving MI6, under the auspices of the royal family. The case name, Operation Paget, is oddly reminiscent of the commander of the Imperial troops in 1939.

As expected, I was summoned by Scotland Yard for questioning in London in 2006 at their designated office within a five-story building housing 80 investigators under Lord Stevens’ command, specifically appointed by the Queen for the investigations.

The first question was pointed: why was I not accompanied by my lawyer? I replied that I felt no need for legal counsel, as I had nothing to hide or feel guilty about. As always, I reiterated my account clearly in French to avoid any potential misunderstandings that could be pivotal for the inquiry, with a detective serving as translator.

Moreover, I commented on the security tape that was now attached to my statement. I ultimately requested, as a matter of right under English law, a written copy of my deposition, which was documented in the most conventional police protocols.

Subsequently, after indicating my willingness to call upon all our workshop collaborators—those present on August 30 at our Paris boutique, and others from late July in Monaco—a series of inquiries was launched by Scotland Yard. This included a second round of questioning a few months later, which also involved my wife, Gio, as she was present during the events and had spoken to Dodi Al-Fayed that day.

This second interrogation was far less courteous than the first, primarily because my wife and I were separated into different offices and subjected to two teams of inspectors. With our statements being recorded by video, we noticed their attempts to intimidate us and provoke contradictions in our accounts.

From the outset, it was clear they weren’t searching for the truth but rather disputing whether the ring provided was “new” or second-hand, asserting it was by no means an engagement ring. They scrutinized my previous statements meticulously, cross-referencing them with a televised interview I had given following the tragic events of 1997, which was touted as a recap on Channel 4 (the UK’s most significant television network) in Paris but, curiously, was never aired. I later understood it was merely a conversation with British services, as confirmed by Scotland Yard.

After six hours of questioning for me and six for my wife—who was repeatedly asked if the ring she presented to Dodi on video was indeed hers—we departed for Monte Carlo. Once again, I requested copies of the tapes from our two interrogations, as was my right. A few days later in Monaco, they arrived by post, but when I attempted to view them, they were completely blank!

I wasn’t overly surprised; during my interrogation, the camera had suffered multiple malfunctions and had to be replaced. So, when I received a third call from Scotland Yard, I assumed they wished to reshoot the footage.

However, upon entering the London office, there was no video system—only the head of Scotland Yard himself, adorned with insignia and medals, accompanied by the usual inspector-translator, who informed me it was merely an informal conversation.

What followed was, for me, one of the most Kafkaesque discussions of my life. I was informed that the investigation was being closed and, regarding our establishment, they recognized us as a noble and reliable enterprise.

Again, unofficially (or so it seemed), there were several inquiries, until I asked: “Why did they need to question me when they had all the tapes of conversations worldwide, obtained from the NSA, and the deeper they dug, the more evidence contrary to their wishes they would find—just to play along with the French?”

They admitted that they indeed received all the NSA’s phone interceptions (which Mohamed Al-Fayed had sought in vain through the courts) but encountered issues with the Ritz Hotel in Paris, as there were too many lines and they could not achieve 100% coverage—an astonishing admission!

When I suggested that if they delved too deeply, they might uncover high-level British responsibility, they insisted they had the utmost freedom and authority to arrest anyone.

“Even Prime Minister Blair or a member of the Royal Family?” I inquired. They assured me they would have no hesitation in doing so if they found evidence of wrongdoing.

During this conversation, which stretched for several hours, another sign of their bad faith emerged. At one point, a whistle echoed clearly through the room—just as it had previously—alerting the investigators that the tape of the camera needed to be changed, as the first segment was nearing completion. The translating officer, visibly flustered, jumped up and exited the room, likely to avoid any additional witnesses; they had managed to conduct this interview in two parts, but they hadn’t anticipated it would last so long.

Upon his return, I looked him straight in the eyes and asked whether he had indeed recorded the tape. After all, the recordings from my previous interrogation were completely blank! Growing increasingly red-faced, he logically replied, “No.”

Their bad faith and desire to avoid witnesses became glaringly obvious when the Director of Scotland Yard asked me, for the sake of everyone involved—and particularly for our House—to alter my account.

They were terrified that an engagement ring could emerge as a symbol, one that might hold significant implications for the mother of a future king and her engagement to a future Muslim husband. Such a notion was unacceptable, even for an institution steeped in monarchic tradition and, undoubtedly, deep-seated racism.

My response was unequivocal: “Absolutely not!” I felt as though I were dreaming, stunned that an institution like Scotland Yard—once an epitome of integrity in my imagination—would ask me to engage in such an illegal act. I was appalled.

They confirmed that the final report on our House would consist of only a few lines and would lack the necessary depth to include all inquiries and deductions made. I simply replied that I was grateful to my fate; by preventing me from finding partners at that time and allowing me to sell the Repossi boutique on Bond Street in London—once thriving at a substantial profit—I was spared from having to alter my account to the detriment of our House’s honor.

Upon returning to Paris, I was filled with trepidation at the prospect of formally documenting these events, knowing my safety could be at risk as well. Determined to respond officially—with my lawyers—to this incredible and unexpected demand, I wrote a “Registered RR” letter on October 11, 2006, directly to Lord Stevens in his capacity as “Lord Appointed.” In it, I expressed my astonishment and loss of trust in his Scotland Yard officers, citing the integrity of the investigation and the real threat to my reputation and safety.

I detailed everything, including the pressures I faced, the blank tapes that undermined my testimony, and the request for an altered account.

Lord Stevens replied officially on October 19, 2006, with little more than praise for my English, essentially dismissing my concerns.

In response, I again wrote an official “RR” letter, posing precise questions to Lord Stevens:

“You indicated that you listened attentively to all the recordings of our testimonies, including those that arrived blank? I assume you also reviewed the tape of my last ‘informal conversation.’

You have claimed I was under pressure and compensated by Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed; what evidence do you base this on?

I have been accused of lying by Chief Hodges, who concluded, ‘We do not believe your account of events.’

If the threat to ‘tarnish my reputation’ recurs, I will be forced to take public and legal action.”

On November 17, 2006, I received a written response from Detective Chief Superintendent David Douglas, stating that Lord Stevens was “traveling abroad for some time.” How could the head of such a critical investigation be away while one of the most publicized and significant trials in England’s recent history was about to commence? He was supposed to report to the court and the Queen regarding Princess Diana’s death, yet he was away on a trip?

Days passed, and soon came the official announcement that Lord Stevens had resigned from leading the investigation due to health reasons. I hoped I hadn’t contributed to his ailments; I would never abandon the quest for truth!

Beyond health concerns, a lord of his stature could not possibly endorse or sign off on such a dossier, especially since I was only aware of a fraction of the much graver doubts that had surfaced during the investigation, such as the embalming of the Princess in Paris—all matters demanding justice.

The written response from the Chief Detective, adorned with heraldic embellishments, failed to address my concerns and implied that if I hadn’t understood their requests, it must be due to my English! (Though Lord Stevens had previously complimented my proficiency.)

Exhausted, I resigned myself to this battle against windmills, recognizing it could prove costly in many ways. Others had lost their lives for far less in this case.

Then came the time for the public trial in London. Having tasted what these gentlemen were capable of, I responded to their requests with two registered letters on November 26 and 29, 2007, directed to lawyer Martin Smith. I informed him that neither my wife nor I would attend the Royal Court of Justice but that we could contribute our testimonies via a “conference call” from the Paris courthouse, alongside a French magistrate.

My fear was that, given the trial’s immense media coverage in London—attended by television networks and dozens of journalists from around the world—I might face an underhanded move from Scotland Yard, potentially leading to my arrest in the courtroom. Even a brief detention could create immediate media fallout that would undermine my testimony.

To their surprise, I conducted the conference call from the Paris courthouse with my lawyers, a certified translator, the French judge, and, last but not least, my wife, who awaited her turn to be interrogated.

The head of Scotland Yard, who had previously requested that I alter my account, acted as prosecutor during the proceedings. When it was my turn, he began by declaring, “Repossi is a liar in collusion with Mr. Mohamed Al-Fayed.”

To this, I responded, “If we’re starting like this, there’s no point in continuing; you’ve already made your decision. Why wasn’t this brought up during my previous interrogations?” Perhaps the tapes of those interrogations had been blank for that very reason.

They accused me of overcharging for Mr. Al-Fayed’s famous ring to gain an advantage in collusion with him. I was able to demonstrate that he received a 30% discount off the sale price according to our listings and contract, and that he could have opted not to pay if he wished.

When my wife’s turn to testify came, she refused to speak given the treatment I had endured. The court inquired whether they could come to Monaco for a deposition; my wife firmly said, “No.”

Finally, I received a copy of Scotland Yard’s official report—a staggering 800 pages long, which was even posted online—where the Repossi ring received a mere 80 pages of attention. Ultimately, the conclusion indicated they could not ignore its existence, asserting it wasn’t a fabrication, yet downplayed its significance.

Two years passed since the trial, during which even Mr. Al-Fayed was crucified—by little, petty measures like stripping him of his exclusive supplier status at Harrods, which, if anything, damaged another English institution rather than Al-Fayed himself (who would later sell it to a Qatari fund). As if such trivialities were more significant than the death of a son!

I never commented on the tragedy that occurred under the Pont de l’Alma, whether it was an accident or orchestrated; that was never my role, except as a witness to what transpired at our House. I believe the English side of the family did not view us as capable of profiting from this tragedy.

This was confirmed in 1999 when we participated as co-sponsors in a fashion show with Versace in London, under the patronage of His Royal Highness Prince Charles of England. If we had been on a blacklist, we certainly would not have been able to take part.

Even publications like the Princess Diana Foundation, which regularly released blacklists of those seeking to exploit her image and the lucrative business surrounding it, never mentioned us.

From the public around the world, we faced no attacks or complaints regarding our conduct—only expressions of gratitude for our discretion!

Epilogue

Years later, my wife and I were invited to lunch by Mr. Al-Fayed in the garden of the Ritz in Paris during the summer. He wished to discuss a subject that, for once, he had declined to address over the phone—a matter I sensed was of great seriousness, leaving me with much to ponder and doubt.

At the end of our terrace lunch, Mr. Al-Fayed produced a sheet of paper from his jacket pocket and handed it to us. It was on the letterhead of the French Ministry of the Interior, addressed to the chief judge of the English court overseeing the accident involving his son and Princess Diana, obtained through Mr. Al-Fayed’s lawyers.

The note was succinct but clear: “For reasons of public order, in the name of the French people, we cannot allow both the doctor who conducted the autopsy and the paparazzi who followed the couple at the time of the tragedy to come to London and testify in the trial regarding the embalming of Princess Diana.”

Mr. Al-Fayed exclaimed, “What public order in France could possibly be disrupted by the testimonies of the doctor and the photographers? Those bastards… The French knew everything and were in cahoots with the English! I will take this to court, and they will hear me!”

I ventured to suggest that perhaps this document was a forgery—at that time, we never considered it—and reminded him that he was fortunate to still be alive. The English could expel him at any moment, especially given his public accusations implicating the Queen’s husband, His Royal Highness Prince Philip, in murder, racism, and colonialism. Moreover, he had significant interests in France, like the Ritz Hotel, which could make him reconsider staying and seeking refuge in his son’s memory.

He did withdraw, though it must have cost him dearly to abandon the fight and leave his son without vengeance. That letter from the French government spoke volumes about unresolved mysteries and covered implications, perhaps stemming from interests I struggled to comprehend in the 20th century.

Whatever the outcomes of renewed inquiries might have been, I can only lament that the Princess was deliberately belittled over the years, increasingly so, in a bid to overshadow an icon, a myth that eclipsed those who wished her absence. They nearly made us forget the anniversary of the death of such a beloved figure, obstructing even the construction of a single statue in England to honor the person most cherished in the past centuries. Eventually, it was only her two sons who succeeded in erecting a memorial to her memory.

Continuation of the Investigation

The six months following the public trial verdict of Operation Paget were handed over to Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker. Some of the comments from the investigation were reported on the news website, One Minute World News:

April 7, 2008: It was stated that Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed were victims of a car crash due to the negligence of both the driver and the paparazzi.

November 6, 2008: French authorities refused to “compel” the paparazzi to testify and participate in the trial.

I personally saw the letter from the French Ministry of the Interior, denying permission for the paparazzi and the doctor, who illegally embalmed the Princess, to testify at the trial on grounds of (French) “national interest.”

March 10, 2008: Written statements were submitted by the paparazzi, claiming that the driver appeared drunk and was smiling broadly at the photographers.

April 1, 2008: The butler of Princess Diana, Paul Burrell, alleged that Diana had written a note suggesting that in the event of her death by accident, Prince Charles should be investigated. It was also added that Burrell’s testimony did not align with the truth in any way and should be disregarded. Furthermore, no investigation into his “perjury” would be pursued as he was now outside UK jurisdiction, residing in the US.

March 31, 2008: There was no evidence to suggest that the Duke of Edinburgh ordered the Princess’s death or instructed MI6 to carry it out.
February 26, 2008: A female MI6 officer, referred to as Miss X, testified that the secret service had no file on Princess Diana or Dodi Al-Fayed, except for tracking Dodi’s Harrods credit card.

When I personally asked Scotland Yard why they kept questioning me when they already had all the evidence from the NSA (US) wiretaps, they responded: “No, we had issues with the phone lines at the Ritz Hotel in Paris because there were too many, and we couldn’t monitor them all.”

Continuation in 2022

In 2020, a London-based production company contacted me to request an interview for a program airing on a British TV channel, marking the anniversary of Princess Diana’s tragedy.

Somewhat disillusioned, I had long since decided not to grant interviews unless they were with highly reputable or completely trusted journalists.

After some research, via a golfing acquaintance of mine, a British film producer, I discovered that Channel 4 was behind the program. I accepted the offer because of my shocking experience with the channel back in 1997.

In fact, right after the accident in 1997, we granted Channel 4 an exclusive TV interview for the UK. However, this interview was never aired in any program, despite numerous Channel 4 documentaries about Princess Diana.

I later realized that the interview had been requested by Her Majesty’s services, not only to learn my version of events but also to block any other UK interviews.

I became aware of this when Scotland Yard interviewed me during the official investigation. The lead investigator contested my statements multiple times, raising issues based on what I had supposedly said to Channel 4.

How did they know what I had said to Channel 4 if the interview had never been broadcast?

I told myself that after 25 years, I could finally share my version of the events with the UK public, a version quite different from the “official” narrative of the establishment. So, I accepted the interview, which took place in Nice at an Art Deco villa where the set for the interview was arranged.

This time, I brought my assistant, who recorded the entire interview on her phone for the approximately three hours it lasted.

The broadcast aired in August 2021 as promised, and the footage was also given to a French program without, of course, informing me.

Since I was unable to watch the broadcast, we requested copies on CD, as the web link provided did not allow for access. Once again, when I watched the program, I was deeply disappointed. My participation had been reduced to about four minutes, with some parts misrepresented. The rest of the show consisted of interviews with various retired investigators of the time, repeating the same version of events as dictated by the establishment. No new revelations, no progression in the investigation, just one official truth.

I had been naive—there was no way they would let their guard down and risk undermining their carefully constructed narrative of the official version.

Poor England!

But this time, if there are any disputes about this chapter, I have the recordings. And just like my past recordings, they cannot be contested.

Poor Scotland Yard!

By Alberto Repossi

Senior Editor

Jewelry has been a Repossi family legacy since 1920, beginning with Alberto Repossi's grandfather's first High Jewelry factory in northern Italy. In 1978, Alberto and his wife, Gio' Giove Repossi, opened their first store in Monaco, followed by another in Paris in 1986. By 1994, Repossi became the "Official Supplier of H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco." Their creations have adorned royalty and celebrities, including Princess Diana's engagement ring in 1997 and Princess Charlene of Monaco's engagement ring.