The viral claim resurfacing online: 12:23 AM — ALMA TUNNEL, PARIS — “The Mercedes wasn’t just speeding, it was being pressured,” eyewitness François L. claimed in a 1998 statement about the crash that killed Princess Diana. Official reports say 110 km/h. He insists another car was closing in from the left seconds before impact with Pillar 13
This statement ties directly into one of the most debated eyewitness accounts from the night of August 31, 1997, when Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, their driver Henri Paul, and bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones crashed in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel. The quote attributes to an eyewitness named “François L.” a claim that the Mercedes was “pressured” by another vehicle approaching from the left, contributing to the loss of control and fatal collision with the 13th pillar.
The witness in question is François Levistre (sometimes referred to in early reports as François Levi or similar variations), a French motorist driving ahead of the royal Mercedes through the tunnel. He provided statements to French authorities shortly after the crash in 1997–1998 and later testified via video link at the 2007–2008 British inquest into Diana’s death.
Official Findings on Speed and Cause
French and British investigations concluded the crash was a tragic accident caused primarily by:
Henri Paul’s intoxication — His blood alcohol level was over three times the French legal limit, plus traces of prescription drugs.
Excessive speed — Forensic reconstruction estimated the Mercedes hit the pillar at 95–110 km/h (59–68 mph), roughly twice the 50 km/h (31 mph) tunnel limit.
Loss of control — The car swerved, clipped the tunnel wall/curb, and struck the central pillar.
No evidence supported deliberate “pressure” or foul play. The 2006 Operation Paget report (Metropolitan Police) and the 2008 inquest jury verdict both ruled unlawful killing due to grossly negligent driving by Paul, aggravated by paparazzi pursuit—but not murder or conspiracy.
François Levistre’s Account: The “Flash” and What He Claimed
Levistre’s testimony evolved over time, drawing scrutiny for inconsistencies:
In his initial French statements (1997–1998), he described driving ahead of the Mercedes, seeing a motorcycle overtake it in the tunnel, and noticing a bright “white flash” (via rear-view mirror) just before hearing the crash.
He claimed the flash was directed at the Mercedes (not him), potentially blinding the driver momentarily.
At the 2007 inquest, he reiterated seeing a motorcycle ahead, a “major white flash” from it, the Mercedes veering side-to-side, then crashing. He added seeing two men on the motorcycle afterward, with one gesturing as if “job done” after checking the wreckage.
Crucially, some summaries of his accounts mention seeing a small white car in the tunnel (though he said no contact occurred), but he did not explicitly describe a vehicle “closing in from the left” to pressure the Mercedes in the way the viral quote suggests.
The “pressured” phrasing and “another car closing in from the left” appear to blend or paraphrase elements from Levistre’s testimony with other witnesses’ reports—particularly those involving the mysterious white Fiat Uno.
The White Fiat Uno: The Real “Another Car” Angle
Multiple witnesses and forensic evidence pointed to a glancing collision with a white Fiat Uno (a small hatchback) shortly before or as the Mercedes entered/swerved in the tunnel:
Paint traces (white) and a broken Fiat taillight fragment were found on the Mercedes.
Several eyewitnesses (including a couple exiting the tunnel) described seeing a white Fiat driving erratically, with the driver checking mirrors intently, emerging from the area around the crash time.
Some accounts suggested the Mercedes may have clipped or been forced to swerve around a slower-moving vehicle (possibly the Fiat) in the right lane before moving left and losing control.
French investigators called the failure to identify the Fiat’s driver a lasting “frustration”—it was never traced despite extensive efforts.
This Fiat element fueled speculation that it “pressured” or contributed to the swerve, though official reports concluded any contact was minor and not the primary cause—the Mercedes was already traveling far too fast.
Levistre himself mentioned a small white car in some statements but denied contact and focused more on the flash/motorcycle. His wife (passenger at the time) contradicted parts of his flash claim, and Operation Paget deemed the flash unlikely (possibly a reflection or misperception).
Why This Detail Persists in Conspiracy Narratives
The “François L.” quote resurfaces periodically in online discussions, often tied to broader theories (MI6 involvement, assassination, etc.) promoted by Mohamed Al-Fayed and others. Levistre’s “flash” testimony—despite inconsistencies—was highlighted in media as supporting foul-play ideas (e.g., a strobe light to disorient the driver). However:
The inquest jury rejected conspiracy claims.
Levistre’s account had contradictions across statements.
No credible evidence emerged of deliberate pressure by another vehicle.
The official speed (up to 110 km/h) aligns with reconstructions; eyewitnesses who claimed higher speeds were often estimating from sound or brief glimpses.
The Lasting Legacy
Nearly 30 years on, the Alma tunnel crash remains a focal point for grief, scrutiny, and speculation. While François Levistre’s testimony added intrigue—especially the flash and possible white car sightings—the weight of evidence supports the accident conclusion: a high-speed, impaired drive ending in tragedy.
The “pressure” from another car? It echoes the unresolved Fiat Uno mystery more than a direct Levistre quote, but it keeps the conversation alive about what really happened in those final seconds under the Paris streets.
