The Investigator: Fifty Years of Uncovering the Truth

Over my career, I’ve come across many conspiracy theories. A few, such as those involving President Nixon, turned out to be true. Most did not.

The dangerous beauty of even the most outlandish conspiracy theory is that it can never be extinguished. When facts emerge to contradict the theorist’s point of view, he dismisses them as part of the conspiracy itself. To this day, a not-insignificant number of Americans still question whether Neil Armstrong really did walk on the moon or whether Bobby Kennedy risked his career and his brother’s presidency to murder the actress Marilyn Monroe. Even I have found myself mentioned form time to time in wild suppositions—such as a book suggesting that the Watergate investigation was less an investigation of crimes than a massive left-wing conspiracy to elect Edward Kennedy President of the United States. (Our “plan” obviously worked like a charm.) 
 

In more recent years, there has been the continued conspiracy over the current president’s place of birth—a conspiracy exacerbated by the White House’s slowness in releasing his full birth certificate. And to this day, there are those who question what really caused the 9/11 attacks. 
 

Articles still float around on the Internet tying my work for Bill Clinton into my alleged involvement with cloak-and-dagger activities. One in particular is entitled “Terry Lenzner’s CIA connection.” I usually shrug this stuff off with a laugh and wonder about people with so much time on their hands. What else is there to do? You can never fully disprove something that people are determined to believe is the truth. 
 

One of the most sensational conspiracy theories in recent years surrounds the shocking death of Princess Diana and her paramour, Dodi Fayed. I found myself pulled, at least tangentially, into the tragedy. I have never before discussed my involvement in this case, but I feel comfortable doing so now. Chiefly, this is because Fayed himself has gone to great lengths in subsequent years to demand that all of the information involving the car collision be made known to the public. His theory of the case and the conclusions he’s drawn—such as those that led him to me—have been publicized widely. 
 

The Diana investigation is a fascinating case study of the conspiracy theory phenomenon. For one, the case reveals how people with motivation and means can find “facts” to fit any theory they like. It also demonstrates that sometimes there is something larger at stake than the literal truth. 
 

* * *
 

Mohammed al Fayed is in Baltimore to undergo what I am told are routine physical examinations at the famed Johns Hopkins Medical Center. As I drive to meet him on an autumn morning in 1998, the trees along the Baltimore-Washington parkway are in the midst of their annual transformation. 
 

The billionaire mogul has called me personally to ask for the meeting. I have the impression he doesn’t want a crowd of people coming with me.
 

I usually ask my staff to conduct a substantial amount of background research before I meet a prospective client. I will not even attend a meeting with lawyers at a law firm, for example, without someone running a database check to see what cases the firm is involved in, what kind of work they do, and who their associates are. I need the big picture of their network to ensure that my involvement is not a conflict of interest with another client. That was not necessary in this case. I know a good deal about Mohammed al Fayed from my own memory. I don’t know precisely why he wants to meet with me, but he does pique my curiosity.
 

The hotel along the Baltimore harbor is rather nondescript. I suppose I expected more opulent accommodations for a man of Fayed’s means. But he’s expecting me, according to the staff in the lobby; I give my name to someone at the front desk and am told to wait. Before long, I am greeted by two sizable armed men.
 

You can find out a lot of interesting things when you make small talk with people. And I am curious about Fayed’s men, who are in a sense “fellow travelers” in the security world. I ask them their background and learn that they are former members of the British Special Forces. He has hired Britain’s best for his own security. Their job is to usher me through an impressive wall of security before I am permitted to lay eyes on Fayed himself. 
 

Fayed is a self-made man who rose from relative poverty in his native Egypt to become owner one of the premier department stores in the world. Over the years, I have had the chance to observe the behavior of a number of extremely wealthy people like him. Some seem to prefer more inconspicuous forms of security, while others enjoy the trappings that come with a full-on display of muscle.
 

 I see at once that Mohammed al Fayed is in the latter category. In fact, the ostentatious display of security around him is reminiscent of what I learned during the Watergate hearings about the multi-layered organization around the paranoid and reclusive Howard Hughes. 
 

Fayed’s entourage occupies the entire top floor of the hotel, which is now off limits to any other guest for the duration of his stay. There are cameras installed and devices on the floor, which I identify as sound detectors to indicate if anyone is approaching. A number of people are standing around, trying to look occupied and vigilant. This all seems completely unnecessary for a department store mogul. How many people in the world, for example, are out to get the head of Macy’s? 
 

It has been one year since those early morning hours in Paris when his son, Dodi, died alongside Princess Diana, their vivid lives cut short by a veering black Mercedes and a stone tunnel wall. Having children on my own, I have great sympathy for Fayed. I wouldn’t want to even imagine the horror of his situation. My hunch about our meeting is that a grieving father of substantial means wants some answers for a senseless tragedy. I don’t blame him for that. But I soon come to realize that this case is about much more.
 

After I am escorted into his suite, Fayed emerges from his bedroom. He is nearly 70, with a healthy-looking bronze complexion and a balding head. He is wearing a white bathrobe, which I find a little disconcerting. I have the sense that this is something he thinks rich men do, if only to show they can get away with it. Eventually it becomes clear that there is clothing underneath. 
 

As he greets me, I encounter a charming man with no shortage of confidence.

“Welcome,” he says as we seat ourselves. An assistant quickly offers me a glass of iced tea. “Now, Terry, listen. I’m going to tell you this story, and I know at the end of this you are going to say, ‘Fayed, you are absolutely right.’”

I have to stop him right there. “Fayed,” I reply, “I’m sure you understand that the worst thing a professional investigator can do is to decide the conclusion of an investigation before it starts.” 
 

“No, no, I understand,” he says brightly. “But I have no doubt you’ll be convinced when I finish.” His tone is polite and business-like, and I do not notice an outpouring of grief over his son’s predicament. Perhaps this is just his way.

This situation—a client wanting to predetermine the outcome of the case—is already a red flag. Few things are more harmful to the conduct of an investigation than pre-ordained conclusions. More worrisome I have the impression that he is trying to tell me what my investigation is supposed to “uncover.” Some investigators for hire may work that way. I want to make clear that I am not one of them. 
 

“There was a plot,” Fayed announces, “between the British government and the royal family to prevent my son from marrying Princess Diana.” Such a marriage, he notes, would have made him a distant relation of the British royal family. “They couldn’t afford to have this happen.” 
 

Now I know beyond question why I am here. One of the world’s richest men wants me to prove that the Queen of England was involved in a massive, far-reaching murder plot against one of the most famous women in the world. That shouldn’t be any problem. 
 

Since the days of the Kennedy administration, through my time as the chief investigator on the Watergate Committee and my work in defense of Bill Clinton, I have developed some sense of the suspicious or suspect. Nothing approaching that came to my mind when I watched the initial coverage of Diana’s death. I vaguely remember first hearing the news—the crash that occurred just after midnight in Paris…the reports of a paparazzi chase…news that Dodi and the driver, Henri Paul, an employee of Dodi’s father, had died instantly…a bodyguard surviving but with no memory of the event…the furious effort to save the princess’s life…then the announcement that stunned the world…and that sad image of two mourning princes, holding their father’s hand. It all seemed like an appalling accident, but I can’t say it preoccupied my thoughts for long. 
 

I don’t know anyone in the royal family. They are not my circle, and I guess if I think about it, the whole idea of a monarchy is sort of silly. Still, I have to imagine that the royals have bigger concerns in their lives than Fayed. Then again, I know that the instincts of clients are always significant. They are the ones living with the situation, living with the people involved. I have to assume Fayed knows more about the royals and their workings than I do. 
 

As these things go through my mind, outwardly I remain attentive and polite. An investigator learns a lot about a case just by listening carefully. And as Fayed makes a reference to what seems to be ancient history, I realize that this is where his story—the one that brought me to Baltimore—actually begins. 

In 1987, a decade before his son’s death, the flamboyant mogul with the Muslim name and uncertain origins purchased a controlling interest in one of England’s iconic brands, Harrods, and quickly found himself embroiled in a bitter dispute with Her Majesty’s government. The Crown claimed that Fayed had misrepresented himself in negotiations to secure the company. A messy court inquiry ensued. Eventually, Fayed did obtain his interest in the store, but for more than a decade thereafter, he was in a fight with the British government, embarking on a vain quest to obtain British citizenship. Perhaps for understandable reasons, he considered their denial a peculiar slap, especially since he was living in England, had sired four British-born sons, owned the country’s most luxurious department-store chain, and paid millions in taxes to the Crown. 
 

I’ve worked enough with the British during the course of my investigative work to know that they are often the epitome of the “old boy’s network.” I can see completely how they must have viewed Fayed. I can also understand his sense of grievance. This is when his idea of a cold-blooded—or, more to the point, blue-blooded—conspiracy against him and his family first took hold. 

His son Dodi’s subsequent love affair with Princess Diana, and the marriage his father clearly hoped for, would have been a masterful way for Fayed to repay the establishment in full. That miserable “Dracula family”—as he colorfully referred to the royals some time later—would have been stuck with the Fayeds as their in-laws forever. On that horrible morning in Paris, that dream and his son were both taken away. 
 

It is obvious as Fayed speaks to me that the Harrods battle and the indignities he feels he suffered still burn within him, amplifying his sense that the British have set out to destroy him. Now that he no longer has his son to deploy as a weapon against the royals, he is determined to pursue his Plan B. 

I cannot imagine that he truly believes he will ever live to see Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip frog-marched out of Buckingham Palace and placed under arrest for murder. Instead, his goal is to cause them as much pain and embarrassment as they caused him. If he can get the royals to undergo humiliating depositions, forced to answer personal and embarrassing questions, all the better. Oddly, Fayed intends to pay back the royal family the same way that Princess Diana did: through the use of the media. I can’t help but think that he is proving that the royal family was right to be wary of him. 
 

Fayed tells me that he has in his possession a list of people who have come to him with information to prove his conspiracy theory. One of these informants has a perfect-sounding name for a conspiracy: Oswald LeWinter. LeWinter has told Fayed about a white Fiat, which was used by the British Secret Service to conduct surveillance on the couple. 
 

Fayed declares with impressive conviction that the Fiat intentionally drove into the tunnel, forced the Mercedes into the wall, exited the tunnel, was driven to the British embassy in Paris, dismantled, and finally thrown into the Seine. He says he’s asked the FBI to investigate all of this, but they’re dragging their feet, and he’s frustrated. 
 

I don’t know anything about what he is saying. How in the world do I prove this? “Do you have any more details about the car?” I ask. Perhaps a better description? Or, ideally, the license plate number, which obviously could save us a lot of work?
 

Fayed refers again to the list of people who have been talking to him, including LeWinter, whose name I suspect I’m going to hear often in this investigation. 
 

Fayed and I have been talking for nearly an hour. He is not a foolish man. He does not strike me as unstable. I think he simply has convinced himself that the royal family—whose ancestors assumed the throne through the violent and sometimes convenient deaths of their rivals—are still perfectly capable of doing this. Dodi and Diana were an extreme problem, and the royals would have taken extreme measures to solve it. In his vendetta against the British, he likely thinks it handy to have a report supporting his allegations signed and certified by the chief investigator of the Watergate committee and for President Clinton. 
 

I suppose at this point I can simply decline to conduct the investigation. But I don’t do that. Fayed has asked for my help. He is a paying client. He has not directed me to do anything illegal. And I am not in the habit of turning down requests from men of means. I can do what he asks and approach the investigation fairly. At the very least, perhaps I can find some information that will provide him some solace. 
 

But there is a danger here. I know pretty well by now that if you look hard enough at any event, it can start to appear suspicious. Coincidences become patterns. Human error or foolish mistakes become proof of wrongdoing. 

As our meeting nears its end, Fayed hands me the list of names and again makes clear that he wants me to verify their stories. 
 

“I will do my best, Fayed,” I tell him. 
 

The mogul then rises from his seat and goes back into his bedroom. He returns a minute or two later carrying a Harrods shopping bag, filled with articles of clothing. 
 

“Give these to your wife,” he says. Then he adds with a twinkle, “Or your mistress. Or both.”
 

It was probably meant as a harmless joke, but I do not appreciate the insinuation. Neither, by the way, would my wife. I do not want to look offended, but I am not sure if I am entirely successful. 
 

When I return to my house in Washington, D.C., I hand all of Fayed’s gifts to my wife, Margaret. I also tell her what he said. 
 

Margaret looks in the bag for only a moment. “These are going to Goodwill tomorrow,” she says. And they do.

 ***

When I bring the Fayed case before my team at my Washington office, it is probably fair to say that none of us contemplate that we were going to be solving the crime of the century. It seems unlikely that we will uncover solid, incontrovertible proof directly linking the royal family to the collision, as Fayed hopes and expects. 
 

But there is a possibility that something suspicious did indeed occur inside that Paris tunnel. Perhaps one of the paparazzi was involved. Or perhaps there really was a white Fiat, as Fayed believes, whose driver had important information. 
 

Our major tasks at the outset are as follows: to examine Oswald LeWinter and his cohorts to ascertain their credibility; to examine the role played, if any, by intelligence services in connection with the crash; to look into Fayed’s allegations that the FBI is dragging its feet investigating LeWinter and his claims; and to figure out whether there is any the truth to the story of the mysterious white Fiat. 

--

 

第六章：有時候客戶想聽的是謊話

 

　　在我的職業生涯中，我聽過許許多多的陰謀論。當中有一些是真的，像是尼克森總統，但是絕大多數都是假的。

 

　　即便是最匪夷所思的陰謀論都散發著燁燁生輝的光芒，這危險的美麗是無法被消滅的。當事實浮現而與陰謀論本身產生衝突時，這些事實往往會被歸於陰謀論的一部分。時至今日，仍然有為數眾多的美國人對於「尼爾．阿姆斯壯是否真的登陸月球」或「巴比．甘迺迪是否拿自己的職業生涯與他的哥哥約翰．甘迺迪的總統任期冒險，謀殺了瑪麗蓮．夢露」這類問題存疑。即便我發現有些陰謀論根本在時間上有矛盾──像是有一本書指出：水門案的調查是左派的陰謀，一切都是為了要讓艾德華．甘迺迪能夠順利競選美國總統。

 

　　最近幾年，有些人甚至連總統的出生地都覺得有問題，而白宮遲遲不公開總統的出生證明更助長了這一點。到今天仍然有人在問九一一恐怖攻擊是什麼原因造成的。

 

　　網路上還有文章說我的隱密行動和比爾．柯林頓有關係，其中有一篇的標題甚至寫「泰瑞．林莎與CIA的關聯」。通常我都會對這種文章一笑置之，並懷疑說怎麼會有人時間這麼多，難道沒有其他什麼事情好做了嗎？一旦人民相信某件事情是真的，就算你找出山一樣高的證據，你還是很難讓他們改變想法。

 

　　最近其中一項膾炙人口的陰謀論則是圍繞著黛安娜王妃與多迪．法耶茲的車禍。我想，我好像無法完全跟這齣悲劇脫離關係。以往我都不曾讓我出現在這些事件之中，但是我覺得現在應該無所謂了。主要的原因是因為法耶茲已經讓這場車禍中的許多訊息都已經攤開在大太陽底下了，他對於這件事情的來龍去脈，還有他為什麼會找上我，都已經被公諸於世了。

 

　　用陰謀論的角度來看待黛安娜事件是一件很有趣的事情。這件事情可以讓我們看到那些有心人是怎麼找出「事實」來符合他們的推論，有些時候，那些被揭露的真相只是整件事情中的冰山一角罷了。

 

* * *

　　那時我被告知穆罕默德．法耶茲正在巴爾的摩的約翰．霍普斯金醫院進行例行的身體健康檢查。那是1998年的秋天早上，在我開車去見他的路上，巴爾的摩與華盛頓相交接大路旁的行道樹正是一片金黃。

 

　　這位億萬富翁在私底下打電話給我，要求我和他見面。依照我對他的印象，我想他應該不希望我帶著一票人馬出現。

 

　　我的職員通常會在我與客戶見面之前對他們做一番身家調查。在調查過對方的律師事務所都接些什麼案子、他們都做些什麼工作或者是他們和哪些人有關之前，我甚至不會出席在律師事務所的會面。我需要對每個客戶有個清楚的脈絡，以免我的參與損害到其他客戶的利益。但在這個案子裡面，沒這個必要。我本身對穆罕默德．法耶茲就已經知之甚詳了。我不知道為什麼他會要求和我見面，但是他確實挑起了我的好奇心。

 

　　巴爾的摩海岸邊的這間飯店一點也不起眼，我以為像是穆罕默德．法耶茲這樣的人會住在更金碧輝煌的地方，不過他確實在這裡等我。在我告訴櫃檯人員我的名字後，過沒多久就有兩個荷槍實彈的武裝人員來「歡迎」我。

 

　　在與人的短暫交談中，其實你可以發現很多有趣的事情。我對法耶茲的部下很好奇，因為他們看起來不太像是一般的保全。我問了他們才知道，原來他們是前英國特種部隊的成員。法耶茲僱用英國最頂尖的戰鬥人員做為自己的護衛。在我見到法耶茲之前，我必須要通過一道厚度驚人的保全人牆，而他們兩位的工作就是將我帶到法耶茲眼前。

 

　　從他的家鄉埃及白手起家，法耶茲一路打拚到成為世界知名百貨公司的擁有人。這些年來，我看過很多像他這樣有錢的人。當中有些人會讓護衛盡量顯得不起眼，也有些人會刻意讓人知道他的銅牆鐵壁有多麼牢不可破。

 

　　看一眼就知道穆罕默德．法耶茲是屬於後者，無庸置疑。事實上，他這種近乎炫耀的保全程度讓我不禁想起了在水門公聽會被層層包圍的霍華德．休斯，以及他的低調與偏執。

 

　　法耶茲和他的人員佔據了飯店的整個頂樓，在他待在這間飯店的期間內，所有人的進出都被嚴格地控管。到處都是攝影機和其他保全設施，我甚至在地板上看到聲音感應器，有更多人在附近來回巡邏。對一個百貨公司大亨來說，這樣的陣仗似乎有點過頭了，梅西百貨公司都沒這麼誇張。

 

　　一年前，他的兒子與黛安娜王妃葬身在一輛賓士內，魂斷巴黎的阿爾瑪橋隧道。我自己也有孩子，我為法耶茲深感同情，我甚至不願想像這樣的情形發生在我身上。我直覺地認為這個案子是一名悲傷的父親希望有人能在這場悲劇中給他一些答案，這是人之常情，但我很快地發現事情並不如我想像中這麼簡單。

 

　　在我被護送到他的套房時，我才真正親眼看到他，他年近七十，有著一身古銅的膚色和所剩無幾的頭髮，他穿著雪白的浴袍從臥房中走了出來，這讓我嗅到一絲不正常的味道。我知道有些有錢人確實會這麼做，但都是為了在接下來能夠把浴袍脫下來，顯露出穿在底下的衣服。

　　當他向我點頭致意時，我看到這個充滿自信的老人散發出的魅力。

 

　　「歡迎。」他說。在我們坐下之後，一個助理馬上給了我一杯冰茶。「泰瑞，聽著。我接下來要跟你說一個故事，而你聽完之後一定會說『法耶茲，你說得一點也沒錯。』。」

 

　　我打斷了他。「法耶茲，」我說：「我確定你知道，最糟的情況就是我們這些專業的調查者在調查開始之前就決定案子的結局。」

 

　　「我知道、我知道。」他爽朗地說道。「但只要你聽完這個故事，你一定會被我說服的。」他的語調禮貌中帶著商業的口吻，而我至今還沒在他的言詞當中發現一絲一毫對於失去兒子的哀傷，也許這就是他的方式吧。

 

　　客戶想要預知案件的發展，這真的不是一個好的開端，沒有什麼比預設結論還要更能夠傷害調查進行的了。更令人憂心的是，我覺得他正試圖告訴我，我的調查中應該「揭露」什麼。有些受雇的私家偵探或許會接受這種做法，但我不會。

 

　　「這是陰謀，」他說：「英國政府和英國皇室不希望我的兒子和黛安娜王妃結婚。」他說這樣的婚姻能夠讓他和英國皇室成為姻親。「他們無法忍受這樣的情形發生。」

 

　　現在我知道我為什麼在這裡了。世界上最有錢的人之一希望我能證明，英國女王是謀殺了世界上最有名的女人的幕後黑手。聽起來還真有道理。

 

　　從為甘迺迪做事，到後來在水門事件中為比爾．柯林頓辯護的首席調查員，這些年的調查員生活已經讓我可以輕易地嗅出事件當中有沒有什麼不尋常之處，但是當我看完黛安娜王妃的死亡報告之後，我卻沒發現任何異常的地方。我依稀記得我那時聽到的新聞──發生在巴黎午夜的車禍、狗仔隊跟拍的報告、多迪和他的駕駛，亨利．保羅當場死亡、有個隨扈活了下來，但記不起任何當時的情形、對黛安娜王妃的搶救、震驚全世界的聲明、兩位哀傷的王子緊握著父親的手的景象。怎麼看都只是一件慘不忍睹的意外，但是我不能讓這樣先入為主的想法佔據我的思考。

 

　　我並不認識皇室中的任何成員。那並不在我的生活圈當中，而且我覺得這個年代還有皇室還挺愚蠢的。但是我必須想像皇室成員在這個事件當中佔了相當重要的角色，因為我知道客戶的直覺是很重要的，他們曾經參與了當下那個情況，也曾和當事人一同生活過。我必須假設法耶茲比我還要清楚皇室成員與他們的所作所為。

 

　　在這些想法在我腦海中一閃而過的同時，我仍然表現得專注而得體，畢竟一個好的調查者是會從傾聽中得到很多資訊的。當法耶茲說起這個聽起來很古老的故事時，我知道這個讓我大老遠跑來巴爾的摩的故事才即將要開始。

 

　　1987年，他的兒子過世前二十年，這個有著傳統穆斯林名字的大亨買下了英國著名的品牌，哈洛德，然後旋即發現自己被捲入了與英國政府無盡的糾紛當中。皇室聲稱法耶茲為了保住這間公司而在談判中說出了扭曲的事實，隨之一大堆的法院調查接踵而來。事實上，發耶茲確實對這間公司很有興趣，但是在二十多年前，他還為了保有英國的公民權而和英國政府爭論不休。可想而知的，他狠狠給了英國政府的拒絕一個巴掌，因為他在英國就已經生下了四個孩子，還掌控英國最大的百貨公司通路，每年還繳了數百萬的稅金給英國皇室。

 

　　我以調查員的身份和英國人交手甚久，久到我可以看出他們的老同學網路的縮影。我完全可以猜得到他們是怎麼看法耶茲的，我也知道法耶茲心裡有多麼忿忿不平，這也是為什麼他會覺得這樁冷血的陰謀是由皇室所策劃的。

 

　　後來他的兒子，多迪，與黛安娜王妃陷入愛河，準備步入禮堂，而這正是默罕默德．法耶茲期盼已久的事，他終於可以藉此好好地向這個體制進行報復。如他描聲繪影敘述皇室的，這個悲慘的「吸血鬼家族」將會和法耶茲家藉著聯姻永遠綁在一起。但在巴黎那個可怕的早晨，他的兒子和這個夢想在一場車禍中雙雙隕落。

 

  　如同他告訴我的，我可以看到哈洛德百貨公司帶給他的屈辱和痛苦仍然在他的內心熊熊燃燒著，讓他更覺得是英國設計了這一連串的計謀要來摧毀他。現在他沒了他的兒子這項對付皇室的利器，他只好採取Ｂ計畫了。

 

　　我也無法想像他能在有生之年看到伊麗莎白二世和菲力普王子因謀殺罪而被銬上手銬帶離白金漢宮。相對的，他的目標是要帶給他們痛苦和不堪，一如他們帶給他的一樣。如果他能讓皇室成員向屈辱的證言低頭、逼他們回答那些私人的困窘問題，那也不錯。法耶茲想要藉著媒體的手來向皇室報復，就像他們對黛安娜王妃所做的一樣。聽到這裡，我不得不覺得英國皇室堤防他真是太對了。

 

　　法耶茲告訴我，他手下有一批人已經帶給他許多資料證實他的陰謀論是正確的。其中有個名字聽起來就很陰謀論的人，叫做奧斯瓦德．里溫特。里溫特告訴他一種英國秘密情報組織用來進行雙人跟監的汽車，白色的飛雅特。

 

　　法耶茲說有目擊者指出，當時就是一台飛雅特開進了隧道，害得多迪與黛安娜王妃所乘的那輛賓士撞上牆壁，在那輛飛雅特離開隧道之後，隨之開向了巴黎的英國大使館，然後馬上被拆解、丟進塞納河中。法耶茲說他曾經要求FBI調查這件事情，但FBI卻遲遲不願進行調查，這讓法耶茲百思不得其解。

 

　　我對他所說的事情完全摸不著頭緒，這要我怎麼證明？「有沒有更多關於那輛車的資料？」我問。也許有更詳細一點的描述？或者，最好有車牌號碼，這樣就可以省掉很多麻煩了。

 

　　但是法耶茲把話題帶回向他報告的那群人身上，包括里溫特，這個我會在這次調查中一直聽到的名字。

 

　　法耶茲和我談了將近一個小時，他不笨，但是他的推論還是不怎麼可靠。我覺得他只是單純地說服了自己，以往會致政敵於死地的英國皇室，至今仍然長於做這件事情。對英國皇室而言，多迪與黛安娜王妃的戀情無疑會為他們帶來非常大的麻煩，所以英國皇室就用非常手段來解決這個麻煩。他覺得我這個在水門案為柯林頓總統辯護的首席調查員一定能夠查出什麼來為他控訴英國皇室提供佐証。

 

　　我可以很乾脆的拒絕這次調查，但我沒有。法耶茲付錢請我幫忙他，而他至今也沒有要求我做出什麼違法的事情，加上我也沒有拒人於千里之外的習慣，所以我想，我應該可以接受這次的委託，為法耶茲進行調查，說不定我真的能找出什麼來稍稍撫慰他。

 

　　但是當中還是存在著危險，當我審慎地觀察某一個事件的時候，事情的疑點就會一一浮現出來，畢竟世界上沒有那麼多巧合，人們不小心犯下的過錯就會在這個時候變成重要的證據。

 

　　在我們會面的尾聲，法耶茲交給了我一份名單，再次囑咐我要查明這件事情的真相。

 

　　「我會盡力的，法耶茲。」我告訴他。

 

　　他站起身來，走回了他的臥房。一、兩分鐘之後，他又走了回來，還塞給了我一個哈洛德百貨公司的袋子，裡頭裝滿了名牌衣服。

 

　　「拿回去送給你老婆吧！」隨後又對我眨了眨眼，說：「當然也可以送給你的小三，不過如果你兩個都送我也會不反對啦！」

 

　　他可能覺得這只是個無傷大雅的玩笑，但我不是很喜歡它，我想我老婆也不會喜歡。我試著裝出不在意的表情，但我不確定我裝得像不像。

 

　　當我回到位於華盛頓特區的家中，我把法耶茲的禮物通通送給了我的老婆，瑪格麗特，順便告訴她法耶茲說了什麼。

 

　　瑪格麗特看了看那個袋子裡面的東西，說：「明天這些東西就會被我捐到慈善機構去。」而後來那些衣服也真的都被捐出去了。

 

* * *

　　在我把法耶茲的案子帶回我在華盛頓的辦公室之前，我必須坦承，我們並沒有天真到以為能夠解開這個世紀以來的所有迷團，我很懷疑我們有沒有辦法對這個案子抽絲剝繭，找出直指英國皇室參與了這宗謀殺的直接性證據，就如同法耶茲所希望的那樣。

 

　　但是確實有不少疑點在這個巴黎的隧道中，也許那個狗仔隊也是這整宗陰謀中的一顆棋子，也許真的如法耶茲所相信的，有那麼一輛白色的法雅特，而它的駕駛顯然掌握了什麼重要的訊息。

 

　　我們目前的主要任務是：找到奧斯瓦德．里溫特那夥人，看看他們說的話可信性有多高、用電腦模擬車禍當時的情形、試著查明為什麼FBI不願意進一步調查里溫特的證詞以及那輛神秘的白色法雅特到底存不存在。 

--

翻到這邊，實在覺得進度很慢，所以就沒有繼續往下翻了。這本書的作者是Terry Lenzner，已經在今年八月出版囉！有興趣的人可以去亞馬遜找一下這本書的資料。