"rich" <rich01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THISntlworld.com> schreef in bericht
news:ja2uj.996$ab5.783@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "B. B." <bern.boergeenreclame@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47b71fc6$0$25475$9a622dc7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Monday Fayed will testify.
>
> I'll be amazed if he doesn't.
>
>>Let's hope he will not run away before Monday.
>
> It's Lecompte, Pepin & co who have run away. They've refused to testify!
This was to be expected: blame the French! (See below.) Nobody ran away,
they simply refused to testify. Since they live in another country, no UK
autorithy can force the to testify. The late Coroner Burgess warned for
this
problem and alt.conspiracy.princess-diana's legal eagle (who was an expert
in ALL fields) called him an idiot. But it is a real problem. Why does the
UK state organise Inquests about events that happened abroad? It is
obvious
the UK authorities cannot force forgeiners living abroad to testify. If
foreign authorities don't co****ate what use can an UK Inquest have? This
whole procedure only applies in cases when a body is returned to the UK.
Why
no Inquests when UK citizins, who died a violent dead, are buried outside
the UK? Furthermore, the French authorities investigated the accident,
Fayed
was legally represented, he appealed time after time, he even went to the
Court in Strasbourg and he came a cropper.
>> He could claim that the Coroner is biased or he could come with another
>> lame excuse.
>
> What is Lecompte's lame excuse?
He testified in France, I assume he felt that that testimony was enough.
>> If he'll testify the international press will have a field day. All
>> Fayed's accusations will be addressed and he will be asked to back them
>> up. Since the only evidence he can provide is his own vivid
imagination,
>> his "opponent's" lawyers will have a field day too. They'll grill him,
at
>> least that is what they should do.
>
[snip"the "blame the French part]
As to be expected, the conspiracy theorist turn to the French
investigation.
Errors were made, some people didn't perform as well as they should have
done, but all this doesn't prove there was a conspiracy. If there had been
a
conspiracy, the conspirators would haven't been so sloppy. According to
the
conspiracy theorists they managed to orchestrated an extremely complicated
murder. Surely they wouldn't have the mistakes that were made. The real
question the conspiracy theorists haven't answered is how did the alleged
murders know that the car would leave from the back of the Ritz and would
pass the Alma underpass. Not even Fayed disputes the fact that the plan to
leave from the back was cooked up minutes before the four people actually
left. So how could the murders have organised their plans in the space of
only a few minutes?
> The only evidence of HP drinking at all is the bar bills showing he had
> ordered two 50 mil measures of Ricard.
A fact the Fayed organisation lied about! Furthermore, a witness saw Paul
sitting in a bar.
> Forrest, when asked how many Ricards would HP have had to drink to
achieve
> an alchohol reading of 175 mil per 100 mil of blood, ASSUMING, he had
been
> drinking since he went off duty at 7pm, said eight 50 mil measures in
all.
> (i.e. 8 including the 2 he had in the bar at the Ritz).
> Eight 50 mil measures of Ricard @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
45% alchohol = 180 mil of alchohol
> consumed.
> Thats the same amount of alcohol in 6.3 pints of 5% lager.
> Imagine drinking 6 pints and appearing sober to everyone at the hotel,
> tying your shoe laces, no slurred speech, no smell of booze on your
breath
> to people including Trevor Rees and Kieran Wingfield etc etc.
Paul was used to drinking. Nobody paid any real attention to him since he
was a mere driver in this case, a servant, nothing more. He smoked cigars,
which of course hid any alcohol smell. I have to admit that I don't buy
the
bodyguards's story. They claim they thought that Paul was drinking
pineapple
juice. But they had been long in France to have known what Ricard is and
how
it is served. I think the lied to save their reputation.
> It's just bollocks isn't it?
No, it isn't. Seasoned drinkers can hold their liquor. Take for instance a
certain Mr Churchill, who led Britain through it's darkest hours. Most of
the time he was under the influence, but nobody outside his inner circle
noticed! Or got to a "rehab" clinic and ask the staff about the issue. The
answers you will get, will be an eye-opener.
>>Fayed's case is not looking good at all.
>
> Really? Apart from the above, how about the Mishcon note that the police
> sat on for 6 years, the Squidgy Tapes wich were tapped from Sandringham
> and broadcast for weeks, the powerful motorbike in the tunnel, the flash
> of light etc.
Which "powerful motorbike"? The one Levistre claimed to have seen? He lied
(see below). The other things you mention don't prove that there was a
conspiracy to murder Princess Diana. That said, since she wasn't planning
to
marry Fayed Jr. there was no reason to kill her. Or do you still believe a
marriage was just around the corner? And that she was pregnant?
>> Levistre told a story that cannot be true,
>
> Please explain.
He claimed to have watched the crashed car and some sinister people on a
"powerful" motorbike, who acted in a suspicious way, for several minutes.
This cannot be true because several other witnesses arrived shortly after
the crash and didn't see anything. They also didn't see Levistre. Levistre
only went to the police after he heard the news that Princess Diana had
been
in an accident AFTER it was broadcasted. I presume he is one of those
people
who try to get "on board" when a famous person dies by telling ****kies. It
happens all the time. Just re-read Levistre's answers to some sharp
questions. They are evasive, to say the least.
>> Repossi invented story after story,
>
> What did he invent?
Just re-read the hearing transcripts and count how many versions of the
ring
story he told.
>> Tomlinson (who got the money he wanted from Fayed)
>
> What money? How much?
Tomlinson has stated that Fayed paid him "expenses". How much, I don't
known, but the amount is not im****tant. Far more im****tant of course is
that
Tomlinson exactly told what Fayed wanted to hear. He went to Fayed and fed
him what he wanted to hear.
>> slithered away
Well, he made several severe claims in the press, but under
cross-examination he couldn't back them up, or did he? He told also lies
about MI6 staff in Paris, didn't he?
> He is not a snail is he?
He watered down his initial story. Snails are for a large part made of
water.
>> and McNamara admitted he lied on several occasions.
>
> I can only remember one. He lied about the 2 Ricards in a US(?) tv
> interview.
And in other TV shows.
>> Especially McNamara's cross-examination was a good read, in my opinion.
>> He had to admit that he, Chief Security of Fayed's Dubious Empire, just
>> repeated what his master told him.
>
> Where does he "admit" this?
Re-read the hearing transcripts.
>> He didn't check anything Fayed said,
>
> How do you know?
You got me there. It was even worse. He knew Paul had been drinking two
Ricards and he lied about it. But he re-told simply Fayed's stories about
pregnancy and marriage.
A few conspiracy theorists as members of a jury and "bingo!" But I think
the
errors made by some French people are a far better bet for the conspiracy
theorists. Good old fa****oned anti-French feeling could do the trick. The
frogs messed things up, hence the open verdict. Blame the French!
[snip]
B. B.
|
