Diana’s bodyguard is now head of security at AstraZeneca after building a successful new life for himself a quarter of a century after he was left the sole survivor of a crash that killed the princess and her lover, Dodi Al-Fayed.
Trevor Rees-Jones, 54, who has been spotted for the first time in five years on a family shopping trip, lives with his wife, two children and their dog in a large detached house in Shropshire that he bought four years ago.
The marks that remain on his face are reminders of the car crash on August 31, 1997, which also killed Al-Fayed’s chauffeur, Henri Paul.
Mr Rees-Jones suffered severe head and chest injuries, spent ten days in a coma, and had his face reconstructed with 150 titanium parts by surgeons working off an old photo of him.
After the incident the former Paratrooper suffered ‘profound’ amnesia and could only communicate by whispering and writing things down.
But he now enjoys a quiet family life and a flourishing career – having briefly worked for the United Nations before reportedly earning a fortune as security director for oil services giant Halliburton in Houston, Texas.
He returned to his home county of Shropshire five years ago before starting his current job at AstraZeneca, the firm behind the Oxford University Covid vaccine.
His LinkedIn entry describes him as being based in Shrewsbury and having experience in international operations. He now gives his name as Trevor Rees.
A source told The Sun: ‘His life is quiet and uneventful now. He certainly doesn’t court publicity or speak much about it. He’s tried to move on and get on with his life.’
It comes as a new documentary marking the 25th anniversary of the fateful night heard testimony from investigators and raised questions about why a note detailing Diana’s fears that she would be killed in a car accident was kept locked away for years.
Trevor Rees-Jones, 54, was spotted in his BMW as he waited for his family while they shopped at a Morrisons in Shropshire
Mr Rees-Jones, 54, was the sole survivor of the crash. He is seen in the car on the night. After the incident he suffered ‘profound’ amnesia and could only communicate by whispering and writing things down
Mr Rees-Jones (middle, in the blue shirt) guarding Diana during a holiday in Saint Tropez, in the south of France, in 1997 – the same year as the fatal crash
The programme heard from French detective Martine Monteil, a former head of the elite Brigade Criminelle police unit, who was at the scene in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel shortly after the crash.
She recalled how she found pieces from the wrecked car, evidence of braking and traces of paint on the vehicle Diana had been inside.
The officer’s testimony is featured in episode one of Investigating Diana: Death In Paris, which began last night on Channel 4.
‘We started to find these little clues,’ Monteil said of the initial crash scene, in an exclusive clip of the interview provided to Mail Online.
‘We saw signs of braking. Pieces of red light from another car. On the side of the car were traces of paint. I was obsessed with finding things because it’s important.’
Monteil added: ‘I even found some tiny pearls. They belonged to the Princess.’
The four-part raises fresh questions over why a note detailing the princess’s fears that she would be killed in a car accident was kept locked in a safe by Scotland Yard for years.
Diana had called a meeting with her personal lawyer Lord Mishcon in October 1995 and told him her concerns that a crash would be staged and made to look like an accident.
He made a contemporaneous note of the meeting, which he handed to the Met Police after the crash. It was only handed over to the inquest into Diana’s death in 2003 after her former butler Paul Burrell produced a similar note.
A French detective told Channel 4 how she found pieces from the wrecked car, evidence of braking and traces of paint
The Princess of Wales is pictured at the Red Cross headquarters in Washington DC in June 1997
Barrister Michael Mansfield said the decision to sit on the so-called ‘Mishcon note’ ‘demonstrated a serious reluctance to have this properly investigated from the beginning’.
Mr Mansfield, who represented Fayed’s father Mohamed Fayed, told the programme: ‘The note is important because it’s equivalent to somebody’s premonition.
‘If you were a police officer investigating it, you would want to hand the account over to the French. They didn’t do that.
‘They stick it in the safe and they don’t reveal it. They sat on it for years to protect part of the establishment, namely the Royal Family.
‘What it demonstrates is serious reluctance to have this properly investigated from the beginning.’
Brigade Criminelle chief Martine Monteil (right), who was first to arrive on the scene, recalled how they found ‘tiny pearls’ (left)
The wreckage of Princess Diana’s car is lifted on a truck in the Alma tunnel of Paris on August 31, 1997
Diana met with her lawyer at Kensington Palace. Mr Mansfield said: ‘It seems to me what she wanted to do was leave a marker down with somebody connected with the legal profession.’
Former Met chief Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who headed Operation Paget – which investigated all 104 allegations and conspiracy theories about Diana’s death – said he was first made aware of the note’s existence when he became commissioner in 2000, taking over from Sir Paul Condon.
On the decision to put it in a safe and not reveal it, Lord Stevens added: ‘That was a decision made by Paul Condon – he discussed it with Lord Mishcon and he didn’t think there was anything in that.’
The documentary series, which began last night, also reveals that police contacted Prince Philip after former Harrods boss Mr Fayed made accusations that he was involved in Diana’s death.
Officials found ‘pieces of red light from another car’ at the scene of the crash. The inquest into Diana’s death ruled in 2008 that she was ‘unlawfully killed’, partly because of the ‘gross negligence’ of the driver
Investigators found traces of paint from another vehicle on the side of the car – as shown by this footage from last night’s documentary
Lord Stevens said: ‘The allegations about Prince Philip were not specific… We contacted him to say do you want to reply to anything that has been said? But he said he didn’t have anything to add.’
Operation Paget ruled that Diana’s death was a ‘tragic accident’. Lord Stevens concluded there was ‘no evidence’ of a murder conspiracy or a cover-up by MI6.
The inquest into Diana’s death ruled in 2008 that she was ‘unlawfully killed’, partly because of the ‘gross negligence’ of the driver.
Additional reporting by Claire Joseph, Claudia Joseph and Sue Reid.
Earl Charles Spencer, the younger brother of Princess Diana, stands with Prince William, Prince Harry, and Prince Charles at Princess Diana’s funeral on September 6, 1997
‘Couldn’t Channel 4 afford an English voiceover?’ Viewers slam Princess Diana documentary for putting ‘too much in French’ – then making the subtitles so small they’re impossible to read
By Jessica Taylor for MailOnline
Viewers who tuned in to watch the first episode of Investigating Diana have expressed their annoyance over ‘miniscule’ subtitles – given that much of the programme was in French.
The first episode of Investigating Diana: Death in Paris aired at 9pm on Sunday night on Channel 4.
It explored the tragic death of the Princess of Wales and the joint investigation between British and French authorities that followed.
The first episode of Investigating Diana interviewed French investigators including Martine Monteil, who was the head of the Brigade Criminelle at the time of the accident
Viewers of the documentary, which examines conspiracy theories surrounding Diana’s death and follows how the police approached the investigation, claimed they struggled to read the subtitles
The documentary interviewed the officers tasked with investigating Diana’s death – many of whom only speak French.
However, while subtitles have been added to the bottom of the screen, viewers complained they struggled to read what was being said.
One person tweeted a photo of someone straining to read a tiny piece of paper and said: ‘The microscopic subtitles are really disturbing me.’
Another Twitter user made a similar joke and posted a photo of a woman squinting as she appeared to use mammoth effort to take a look at something.
They wrote: ‘Trying to read the subtitles.’
One person suggested the subtitles themselves flashed up on the screen too quickly and could have lingered for longer.
One viewer said: ‘I know Princess Diana died in France, but with so much of Investigating Diana being in French, with English subtitles, I really can’t be a****.’
They wrote: ‘Will could have allowed for the subtitles to be larger and on-screen for just a little bit longer.’
However, some viewers who did not struggle with subtitles praised the documentary for its interviews, with one saying it was ‘wonderfully detailed’.
The documentary interviewed Martine Monteil, head of the Brigade Criminelle at the time of the accident.
She said: ‘This might be a traffic accident but it couldn’t be treated as a normal accident.’
Twitter users were quick to point out an issue with the subtitles on the programme as they struggled to read the subtitles
Ms Monteil later revealed her ‘very fine’ investigation at the site of the crash led her to recover several key pieces of evidence.
She recalled: ‘We started to find these little clues. We saw signs of braking.
‘Pieces of red light from another car. On the side of the car were traces of paint.’
She added: ‘I even found some tiny pearls. They belonged to The Princess.’
The film crew also interviewed a paparazzo who was following the car Diana was travelling in on the night she died.
Described as ‘both suspects and witnesses’ by investigator Eric Gigou, he described taking several paparazzi into custody.
Photographer Jacques Langevin told the programme: ‘Whether photographers chased the car or not, that’s not what caused the accident. It’s not true.’
Princes William and Harry didn’t learn key details of how their mother died for almost a decade, Channel 4 documentary claims
By Claudia Joseph for the Mail on Sunday
Princes William and Harry didn’t learn key details of how their mother died for almost a decade, the Channel 4 documentary claimed.
Former Scotland Yard chief Lord Stevens, whose investigation into her death forms the basis of the programme, revealed that the two princes had only ‘limited knowledge’ of the 1997 accident in Paris.
Nine years later, in December 2006, Lord Stevens was invited to Kensington Palace to brief the William and Harry about his report’s detailed findings ahead of publication.
It was, he said, a ‘difficult session for them’, which lasted some 90 minutes. He fielded ‘very pertinent questions’ from the Duke of Cambridge, then 24, and Duke of Sussex, 22.
‘I was in possession of the facts of what had taken place, from the beginning of the problem outside the Ritz with the car, to the death and bringing back the body,’ Lord Stevens told The Mail on Sunday.
‘I went in and had an hour, an hour and a half, with them, giving them the details of what took place. Over half the time, I was answering their questions.
Former Scotland Yard chief Lord Stevens, whose investigation into her death forms the basis of the programme, revealed that the two princes had only ‘limited knowledge’ of the 1997 accident in Paris (Pictured: William, Diana and Harry at a the Heads of State VE Remembrance Service in Hyde Park in 1995)
‘I sat opposite them and they sat together on the couch. I know they believed me.
‘Generally, they wanted to know the circumstances of the death, what had happened to their mother, in every aspect.
‘Some of the questions were in detail – which I answered, because they hadn’t been told of the circumstances.
‘I think that was an important thing to do, for them – and I think they appreciated that. It was quite an emotional session.’
‘It was so intense, to be perfectly honest, I don’t think any of us wanted a coffee or any drink. They had very pertinent questions about what happened to their mother and I was there to answer those questions.’
Lord Stevens tells the documentary he’d been in touch with Prince William as part of his initial fact-finding stage of his inquiry,.
‘We exchanged correspondence to inquire about what William knew about his mother and her habits beforehand,’ he said, ‘and whether she said anything about getting married to Dodi, which he didn’t know about at all.’
Lord Stevens also reveals that neither of the princes believed any of the allegations made by Mohammed Al Fayed, father of Dodi, who also died in the crash, on August 31, 1997.
During the years after the accident, the former Harrods owner had offered a litany of wild theories and barely credible accusations, not least that the princess had been pregnant at the time of her death and that key members of the royal family were somehow involved in an extravagant murder plot.
The subsequent report found that all conspiracy theories – some 104 in total – were entirely without foundation.
Prior to the report’s publication, Lord Stevens had tried to brief Al Fayed on its contents. But, despite having had weekly meetings during the three-year investigation, the Egyptian-born businessman turned him away.
‘I went down to Harrods, and he refused to see me,’ he said. ‘We gave him the results of the report through his legal team, and he refused to see me.’
In the documentary, Lord Stevens also details how he interviewed Prince Charles at St James’s Palace about a note written by Diana – and left in the pantry of Kensington Palace for her butler, Paul Burrell, to find.
In it, she predicted that she would die through ‘brake failure and serious head injury’.
It was later suggested that disgraced BBC journalist Martin Bashir – who used bogus papers to con the princess into granting him an interview for Panorama, in 1995 – had exacerbated her sense of paranoia at the time the note was written.
‘The allegation had to be investigated,’ Lord Stevens tells the documentary, ‘whether it’s the future King of England or anyone else. You have to go there. No one is above the law.
‘I wasn’t frightened of the Establishment; the decision was made to see Prince Charles because of the Burrell letter and the allegations made in that letter.
‘Princess Diana had stated that she was going to be murdered by her husband. We had to see if there was any substance to that, and we had to have his reply to it.
‘I’m sure nothing like that had ever happened before, so that was unprecedented. He didn’t mind being involved in any way shape or form and that was noted.’