"rich" <rich01 BIN THIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schreef in bericht
news:4jQFj.6545$6R1.2564@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still some live in this NG!
> 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.
Indeed, because they are not in the UK but in France. Fayed is/was in the
UK. If he hadn't testified, he would have run away. Spot the difference.
It
is al a matter of jurisdiction and several French citizens who live in
France, who played a role in the French investigations refused to be
bullied
by Mansfield and learned friends. Fayed wants to live in the UK, he wants
to
become a UK citizen but he doesn't want to pay taxes. That is why he only
visits Britain, but lives in Monaco. BTW, did you ever read the DTI re****t
about Fayed? He was exposed as a liar and he never challenged the re****t,
which says enough.
Anyway, Fayed testified and it turned out that about 89.2% of all people
was
against him. He was the only person in the world who knows what happened
and
people who refuse to are part of the conspiracy. Fayed's testimony was
pathetic, but a few conspiracy nuts still believe him. Let's hope the Jury
will show common sense.
>> 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.
I understand that this is the law as it stands. The question I tried to
raise is why one should conduct an Inquest when one knows that it will be
likely that im****tant witnesses will not appear. It doesn't make much
sense
to me, especially in this case. Fayed went through the French court system
and he went even to the European Court. He came a cropper.
>> 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.
Since we don't any statement from this person we have to assume, don't we?
>>>> 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]
>
[snip]
> 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.
Mixed with the blood of somebody else? Conspiracy nonsense again.
>> 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.
Argued by conspiracy theorists, one should add. As I said, there is not a
shred of evidence to even suggest that there was a conspiracy. Why hasn't
Fayed come up with something?
>> 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.
Ah, conspiracy theorising at it worst! Link everything together and you
have
what you are looking for.
>> 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?
No, it wasn't, re-read the transcripts. Still, even two hours is far too
short to organise a conspiracy that involves the SAMU, the Parquet, the
Police etc. It is simply impossible.
>>> 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.
He lied about it. The bar tender didn't tell ****kies. That is what
happened
and that is why the receipt was turned over. Furthermore, the Fayed
organisation didn't come up with the conspiracy story until February 1998.
Before that date several of Fayed's employees told a totally different
story. Pressed to clarify these inconsistencies Fayed told the Inquest
that
he didn't know what these people told the press. Do you really believe
that
Fayed, who has a record of changing history and poli****ng up his past,
doesn't know what his press people tell the world? The pregnancy story
emerged several years later, probably after someone told Fayed that
embalmment hides a pregnancy. The real conspiracy has been exposed during
the Inquest. Fayed invented the whole story and changed it on several
occasions.
[snip]
> Smoking does not hide the smell of alcohol. Nobody said he smelled of
> booze or was acting in an intoxicated manner - exactly the opposite.
It doesn't? Well, well.
[snip]
> Having read much of the testimony, I now strongly believe she was going
to
> marry Dodi.
> (I am not talking about Repossi).
The only source for this story is Fayed and he is a liar.
[snip]
> I have to say I found Repossi's testimony infuriating as well as
> unreliable.
He is one of the very few witnesses who backs Fayed's engagement claims.
If
you accept that he lied, why not look at the various and contradicting
stories Fayed 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.
>
> 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.
Not really, it means that Fayed paid Tomlinson to testify.
>> 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?
If you read the transcripts it is quite obvious he did.
[snip
> 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 retracted much of what he said before.
>> 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 claimed at least two MI6 agents were placed in Paris weeks before the
crash. This was an invention.
[snip]
> 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.
Thank you for illustrating my point. Of course the French authorities
don't
go to a British Inquest into in a crash that happened in Paris. It is all
a
matter of jurisdiction. What would happen when the French authorities
investigated a British investigation? The British tabloids would have a
field day! Sadly, a large segment of the British press and population is
xenophobic. Blame the French, that is what could happen after the
verdicts.
It is more likely that nothing will happen because interest in the whole
case is almost nil.
B. B.
|
