"rich" <rich01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THISntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ja2uj.996$ab5.783@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "B. B." <bern.boergeenreclame@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47b71fc6$0$25475$9a622dc7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
said Bernhard, that's exactly what happened.
>
>> 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.
Well said Bernhard, that's exactly what happened.
Now watch rich spin,
> The only "evidence" the french have provided to show Henri Paul was
drunk,
> is blood samples taken by Lecompte (who has refused to testify) analyzed
> by Pepin (who has also refused to testify) and which has now been
> thouroughly discredited at the inquest.
> i.e. bottles were wrongly labeled, the chain of evidence was broken,
> There is not a shred of credible or reliable evidence to show that HP
was
> drunk, or that it was his blood, or that the blood samples had not been
> mixed with.the blood of somebody else.
So rich wants us to believe.
As for Lecompte and Pepin, as French citizens, they were no obliged to
testify to a court of UK jurisdiction. Considering the mess that was made
of
the blood samples, it is hardly surprizing that they avoided cross
examination in
the Coroners court.
Even so, there were samples other than than the blood. There is no
question over the labeling or chain of custody for the vitreous humour.
That gave a ethyl alcohol level of 1.73 g/litre, equivilant to the blood
samples. There is no question over the labeling or chain of custody for
the
urine sample. That gave a ethyl alcohol level of 2.18 g/litre proving HP
was in the elimination phase. There is no question over the labeling or
chain of custody for the stomach sample. That gave a ethyl alcohol level
of
1.91 g/litre. This is why the court appointed expert concluded that he
was
"comfortably satisfied" that the samples came from HP and that he was over
the drink/drive limit. This standard is not the same as the criminal
standard of being sure but was something more than the balance of
probabilities.
HP was drunk, sauced, over the drink drive limit, which ever way you wanna
put it.
the
> carbon monoxide is "biologically inexplicable...a mystery"
Old tricks. Rich despretately posts what suits his conspiracy agenda and
attempts to bluff us with this distortion.
Here is what was actually said in testimony by
Professor Forrest,
"In itself, the blood carboxyhaemoglobin
concentration of 20.7 per cent is biologically
inexplicable.." further "... so one is left with either analytical error
or
a mystery"
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk./hearing_transcripts/220108am.htm
Rich discreetly dumps the phrase 'In itself' which in this context means
in
isolation from the 12.8% CO level obtained from the femoral sample, which
Forrest agrees arose from HP's smoking habit. Dr Forrest does not
conclude
that it was a 'mystery', that's simple rich's little deception. He
provides
us with a choice and it is clear from his testimony that he believes the
explanation lies in analytical error caused by contamination.
"1 What you did consider -- we talked about it earlier,
2 do you remember, when I was asking you about the rib
3 fractures and bone marrow? If blood had come from the
4 chest cavity, you were telling us about the possibility
5 that that blood might have been contaminated in that
6 way.
7 A. Yes. I am not sure that "contaminated" is the right way
8 to put it, but it might well have contained material
9 that could interfere with the measurement of
10 carboxyhaemoglobin in blood by the methods used by
11 Dr Pepin, which were both photospectrometric methods,
12 which basically involve measuring the colour of the
13 blood very accurately at different wavelengths of light
14 and calculating the concentration of carboxyhaemoglobin
15 or the pro****tion of carboxyhaemoglobin relative to
16 ordinary haemoglobin from those wavelengths. Those
17 methods do have problems."
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk./hearing_transcripts/210108pm.htm
So having exposed rich's little deception, we can reject the following
false conclusion,
> There is not a single expert witness in court who can explain the carbon
> monoxide - not one!
<snip>>
>
>>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,
Which was relevant only in as much as it was an indication of Di's state
of
mind in 1995.
the Squidgy Tapes wich were tapped from Sandringham
> and broadcast for weeks,
Bollocks from rich. Notice he slips in that reference to Sandringham.
Where'd that come from!!?
>the powerful motorbike in the tunnel,
??
> the flash of light etc.
From one witness. See below.
>
>> Levistre told a story that cannot be true,
>
> Please explain.
Having you been following the inquest rich??!
Levistre is one of a number of witnesses, who claim to have seen the
accident. Levistre is the only one who claims to have seen a flash.
There
is also the problem that he has spent much time with the media and his
accounts of varied widely and have been inconsistent. He maintained this
with his testimony at the inquest. Levistre admitted not providing
information to the police! He maintained that he remained in the tunnel
for
2-5 minutes after the accident and that no one entered the tunnel which
can
not be true, which contradicts his own statements to the media, that he
signed
a statement he knew not to be true and refrained from telling Stephan
about
it. In fact Levistre's testimony is a complete confusion and mockery.
>
>> Repossi invented story after story,
>
> What did he invent?
He invented a story about meeting Di and Dodi in Saint Tropez. Why will
the
jury think this? Because Repossi told the News of the World and a Channel
4
journalist about it, but ommitted from his statements to Scotland Yard and
told journalist Daphne Barak that he 'did not' meet Diana. When
confronted
by this at the Inquest, Repossi addmitted that he'd lied. He also was
unable to provide a name for the establishment when he supposedly met the
couple, the name of a contact there or at the Ritz to arrange the meeting.
As this testimony was given in front of the jury, I have every confidence
that they will reach the conclusion that Repossi is lying about the
meeting.
>
>> Tomlinson (who got the money he wanted from Fayed)
>
> What money? How much?
>
>> slithered away
>
> He is not a snail is he?
Dunno, more of a non-event. For years we've been bowled by his
revelations
and then, like the all time great anti-climax, Tomlinson signs the
following,
"When I came out of prison, I was strongly
embittered towards MI6 and certainly wanted to cause
them embarrassment and difficulty, and this may have
contributed to my mixing of my knowledge of techniques
with my eventual account."
No bright flash, no tunnel, no Milosovich. Why did Tomlinson completely
and
totally backtrack? 'Under a lot of pressure' from the cops, according to
our
poor little MI6 runaway. And what sort of 'pressure'? lighted matches
under the finger nails? waterboarded? Nah, Tomlinson dumped the entire
scheme, which has kept MAF on a conspiracy high for the past decade,
because
"they were interrogating me in much the same way that you are
interrogating/cross-examining -- or whatever you like to call it -- me
now.
" Now rich, that really is bollocks.
>
>> and McNamara admitted he lied on several occasions.
>
> I can only remember one. He lied about the 2 Ricards in a US(?) tv
> interview.
>
>> 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?
>
>> He didn't check anything Fayed said,
>
> How do you know?
Oh, you only remember one admitted lie, phew, that's ok then. What a
shame
it doesn't end there. McNamara accussed Rees-Jones and Wingfield of
complicity with the security services(MAF's line). Under oath, there was
this exchange,
"23 Q. On absolutely no evidence whatsoever?
24 A. There was a sea change in attitude by them, and my
25 belief was -- and I explained it earlier this morning --
131
1 that they had been influenced then by the security
2 services to write a book.
3 Q. You are prepared to put into a witness statement
4 allegations of that severity and seriousness based on
5 assumption, are you?
6 A. That was my belief, yes.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you regret having put that in
8 your witness statement now?
9 A. I now know that it is not right, yes."
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk./hearing_transcripts/140208pm.htm
McNamara also made public statements that Diana had telephoned friends to
tell them about her engagement to Dodi(MAF's line). Under oath, he was
forced to admit 'I had no evidence of that, no.' Then of course, he
admitted to lying about HP's drinking on the might. The coroner took a
dim
view of this and made this statement in front of the jury, "One of the
problems for the jury is if you tell lies on some occasions, how can they
tell if you are telling the truth on others?"
I would suggest that Bernhards contention that McNamara 'repeated what his
master told him' and that he didn't check anything Fayed said', is not at
all an inaccurate statement. I would also suggest that members of the
jury
who heard this sad testimony, will probably agree with the coroners
remarks
and conclude that McNamara lied more than he cared to admit.
<snip>
Geoff.
|
