On Feb 24, 7:53=EF=BF=BDam, "cromwell" <steu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "rich" <rich01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THISntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ja2uj.996$ab5.783@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > "B. B." <bern.boergeenrecl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:47b71fc6$0$25475$9a622dc7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Well 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
drun=
k,
> > 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
wa=
s
> > 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, =EF=BF=BDas French citizens, they were no
oblig=
ed to
> testify to a court of UK jurisdiction. =EF=BF=BDConsidering 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 =EF=BF=BDsamples other than than the blood.
=EF=BF=BDT=
here 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. =EF=BF=BDThere is no question over the labeling or chain of
custo=
dy for the
> urine sample. =EF=BF=BDThat gave a ethyl alcohol level of 2.18 g/litre
pro=
ving HP
> was in the elimination phase. =EF=BF=BDThere is no question over the
label=
ing or
> chain of custody for the stomach sample. =EF=BF=BDThat gave a ethyl
alcoho=
l level of
> 1.91 g/litre. =EF=BF=BDThis is why the court appointed expert concluded
th=
at he was
> "comfortably satisfied" that the samples came from HP and that he was
over=
> the drink/drive limit. =EF=BF=BDThis standard is not the same as the
crimi=
nal
> 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. =EF=BF=BDRich despretately posts what suits his conspiracy
age=
nda and
> attempts to bluff us with this distortion.
> =EF=BF=BDHere is what was actually said in testimony by
> Professor Forrest,
>
> "In itself, the blood carboxyhaemoglobin
> =EF=BF=BDconcentration of 20.7 per cent is biologically
> =EF=BF=BDinexplicable.." further "... so one is left with either
analytica=
l error
> or
> =EF=BF=BDa
mystery"http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk./hearing_transcri=
pts/220108am.htm
>
> Rich discreetly dumps the phrase 'In itself' which in this context means
i=
n
> isolation from the 12.8% CO level obtained from the femoral sample,
which
> Forrest agrees arose from HP's smoking habit. =EF=BF=BDDr Forrest does
not=
=EF=BF=BDconclude
> that it was a 'mystery', that's simple rich's little deception.
=EF=BF=BDH=
e 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./hearin=
g_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
o=
f
> mind in 1995.
>
> =EF=BF=BDthe Squidgy Tapes wich were tapped from Sandringham
>
> > and broadcast for weeks,
>
> Bollocks from rich. =EF=BF=BDNotice he =EF=BF=BDslips in that reference
to=
Sandringham.
> Where'd that come from!!?
>
> >the powerful motorbike in the tunnel,
>
> ??
>
> > the flash =EF=BF=BDof light etc.
>
> From one witness. =EF=BF=BDSee 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. =EF=BF=BDLevistre is the only one who claims to have seen a
flas=
h.
More to the point several witnesses entering or in the tunnel
travelling from the other direction didn't say they had seen a flash
as described by Levistre.
>=EF=BF=BDThere
> is also the problem that he has spent much time with the media and his
> accounts of varied widely and have been inconsistent. =EF=BF=BDHe
maintain=
ed this
> with his testimony at the inquest. =EF=BF=BDLevistre admitted not
providin=
g
> information to the police! =EF=BF=BDHe maintained that he remained in
the =
tunnel for
> 2-5 minutes after the accident and that no one entered the tunnel which
ca=
n
> 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
abou=
t
> it. =EF=BF=BDIn fact Levistre's testimony is a complete confusion and
mock=
ery.
>
>
>
> >> Repossi invented story after story,
>
> > What did he invent?
>
> He invented a story about meeting Di and Dodi in Saint Tropez.
=EF=BF=BDWh=
y will the
> jury think this? =EF=BF=BDBecause 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. =EF=BF=BDWhen
c=
onfronted
> by this at the Inquest, Repossi addmitted that he'd lied. =EF=BF=BDHe
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
meetin=
g.
>
>
>
> >> 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. =EF=BF=BDFor years we've been bowled by his
re=
velations
> and then, like the all time great anti-climax, Tomlinson signs the
> following,
>
> "When I came out of prison, I was strongly
> =EF=BF=BDembittered towards MI6 and certainly wanted to cause
> =EF=BF=BDthem embarrassment and difficulty, and this may have
> =EF=BF=BDcontributed to my mixing of my knowledge of techniques
> =EF=BF=BDwith my eventual account."
>
> No bright flash, no tunnel, no Milosovich. =EF=BF=BDWhy did Tomlinson
comp=
letely and
> totally backtrack? 'Under a lot of pressure' from the cops, according to
o=
ur
> poor little MI6 runaway. =EF=BF=BDAnd what sort of 'pressure'?
=EF=BF=BDli=
ghted matches
> under the finger nails? waterboarded? Nah, Tomlinson dumped the entire
> scheme, which has kept MAF on a conspiracy high for the past decade,
becau=
se
> "they were interrogating me in =EF=BF=BDmuch the same way that you are
> interrogating/cross-examining -- or whatever you like to =EF=BF=BDcall
it =
-- me now.
> " =EF=BF=BDNow 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(?)
=EF=BF=
=BDtv
> > 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.
=EF=BF=BDWha=
t a shame
> it doesn't end there. =EF=BF=BDMcNamara accussed Rees-Jones and
Wingfield =
of
> complicity with the security services(MAF's line). =EF=BF=BDUnder oath,
th=
ere 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). =EF=BF=BDUnder oath,
h=
e was
> forced to admit 'I had no evidence of that, no.' =EF=BF=BDThen of
course, =
he
> admitted to lying about HP's drinking on the might. =EF=BF=BDThe coroner
t=
ook a dim
> view of this and made this statement in front of the jury, =EF=BF=BD"One
o=
f the
> problems for the jury =EF=BF=BDis if you tell lies on some occasions,
how =
can they
> tell =EF=BF=BDif 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. =EF=BF=BDI would also suggest that members
of=
the jury
> who heard this sad testimony, will probably agree with the coroners
remark=
s
> and conclude that McNamara lied more than he cared to admit.
>
> <snip>
>
> Geoff.
|
