THE inquest into Princess Diana’s death was last night plunged into fresh controversy.

It emerged that so called evidence against her chauffeur is flawed and unreliable.

Henri Paul’s “heavy drinking” has always been blamed for the crash which took place in a Paris tunnel in 1997.

But this key argument in exp-laining the deaths of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed as an accident is about to be blown apart.

Agents from Britain’s MI5 and French intelligence have been linked to Diana’s death and the question now being asked is: “Were blood samples from Mr Paul swapped to make it appear that he was responsible for the crash?”

Gaping holes in the evidence against Mr Paul have already been acknowledged by new coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker.

He said at a hearing last week: “I have some sympathy for the position of Henri Paul’s family, from what I have read so far. There are obviously some serious question marks there.”

Mr Paul’s parents have always maintained he was not an alcoholic and took his responsibilities as a driver seriously.

Sources close to the inquest have told the Daily Express that the blood tests which showed Mr Paul was drunk are not fit to be used as evidence and should be ruled as inadmissible. There is also a continuing court case in France against two medical experts who made serious mistakes in taking and analysing blood samples.

Both have refused to attend the Diana inquest which opens on October 2.

Toxicologist Dr Gilbert Pepin and forensic pathologist Dominique Lecomte are accused of performing the tests so badly it will be impossible to claim that Mr Paul was drunk at the time of the crash.

Michael Mansfield QC, representing Dodi’s father, Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed, has already told a pre-inquest hearing: “We need to know how those errors came to be made. There may be a sinister aspect.”

Read More – Diana’s driver was not drunk [Article From 19/6/07]