"B. B." <bern.boergeenreclame@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47b8d17e$0$25473$9a622dc7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "rich" <rich01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THISntlworld.com> schreef in bericht
> news:ja2uj.996$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.
This is what you said
"Monday Fayed will testify. Let's hope he will not run away before Monday.
He
could claim that the Coroner is biased or he could come with another lame
excuse."
So, according to you, if MAF had not appeared you would have accused him
of
running away, yet when Lecompte, Pepin & co. refuse to appear, they are
not
running away.
> Since they live in another country, no UK autorithy can force the to
> testify.
I'm sure we are all well aware of that.
> 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?
To try and establish how they died.
> 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?
Because the body is not in th 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.
You assume.
>>> 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]
Unsnip what you have ridiculosly labeled the "blame the French part":
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, the
carbon monoxide is "biologically inexplicable...a mystery", the sample
used
for DNA testing was not also tested for alcohol and carbon monoxide, 2
blood
samples photographed with Henri Paul's body showing his chest had not been
opened were said to have come from the hemothorax, a photo of HP taken by
french police officer on the 5th Sept shows no incisions to the scarpa
triangle from which blood samples were supposed to have been taken, again
by
Lecompte, this time in front of Judge Stepan, on the 4th Sept, and these
samples were then taken away by Pepin in his Twingo to be analysed,
commander Mules destroyed his notes, etc etc etc.
There is not a single expert witness in court who can explain the carbon
monoxide - not one!
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.
> As to be expected, the conspiracy theorist turn to the French
> investigation.
Eh?
> Errors were made, some people didn't perform as well as they should have
> done,
You assume.
> but all this doesn't prove there was a conspiracy.
No it doesn't - it just knocks a massive hole in the drunk driver theory.
It can also be argued that it suggests something more sinister than
incompetence.
> If there had been a conspiracy, the conspirators would haven't been so
> sloppy.
Another assumption by you.
> According to the conspiracy theorists they managed to orchestrated an
> extremely complicated murder. Surely they wouldn't have the mistakes
that
> were made.
**** happens. Lansdale got photographed in Dealy Plaza, films of WTC7
collapsing in 6 seconds have now been seen by millions, etc. etc.
> 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?
It was not cooked up "minutes before the four people actually left". IIRC
from the testimony, it was at least an hour or mybe two before that?
>> 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!
Macnamara lied on a US tv programme but he did see to it that the receipt
was given to the french investigators.
>Furthermore, a witness saw Paul sitting in a bar.
Which bar? Do you mean Le Champmele?
>> 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.
Smoking does not hide the smell of alcohol. Nobody said he smelled of
booze
or was acting in an intoxicated manner - exactly the opposite.
> 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.
Maybe, yes. Wingfield claims he asked HP what he was drinking and said
that
HP replied "pineapple juice".
>> It's just bollocks isn't it?
>
> No, it isn't. Seasoned drinkers can hold their liquor.
I am a seasoned/heavy drinker. When I drink 6 pints (or even 4 pints) of
lager, or the equivalent:
1. I smell of booze
2. It is obvious to anyone I'm with or near that I'm intoxicated.
>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!
But his inner circle did notice, right?
>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?
Having read much of the testimony, I now strongly believe she was going to
marry Dodi.
(I am not talking about Repossi).
>>> 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.
OK - I'll have another look at that, however I'm not just relying on
Levistre.
Have you read Boura's testimony? (Oct. 24th -morning session)
I intend to start a new thread on this, rather than go into it here - it
might get a bit involved.
>>> 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.
I have to say I found Repossi's testimony infuriating as well as
unreliable.
>>> 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.
Yes it is. There's a world of difference between buying someone a plane
ticket or a taxi fare than, say, giving them 50 grand in cash or a stay at
the Ritz free forever card.
> 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.
Is this your opinion?
>>> 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 admitted that part of his affidavit concerning the alledged MI6 plan to
kill Milosovich, i.e. the strobe light, was false but IIRC he stuck to his
guns on the rest of it.
> He told also lies about MI6 staff in Paris, didn't he?
Was this in his testimony? If so, could you point me to it?
>> He is not a snail is he?
>
> He watered down his initial story. Snails are for a large part made of
> water.
The strobe light, yes. What else?
>>> 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.
True, but not under oath. See above.
>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!
What went on in that mortuary was a total disaster. It means that the
blood
samples cannot be relied on as evidence, either because of incompetence or
something very bent indeed. It has nothing to do with whether the people
concerned were French or not.
The fact is that the coroner has asked the French authorities to compel
them
to appear, to answer absolutely crucial questions, and that they have
refused to appear. They are not prepared to stand by their statements
under
oath. The jury aren't going to be impressed by that at all.
Interestingly commander Mules has now refused to re-appear, for further
questioning on this issue.
> [snip]
>
> B. B.
>
|
