Re: [CTRL] Reply to NSA The Diana Forum

[NSA]

Birdie, I think maybe you ought to calm down a bit else the Paramedics will
need calling.

Your personal like, or dislike of the Royals, or whomever for that matter,
is quite irrelevant. Blackening the Royals doesn't of itself make the
twitty-twat Diana and whiter.

One point worth remembering when confronted with some of the crazed
conspiracy theories, for example, that there was a pre-meditated plot to
have her ritually sacrificed beneath the Pont de l'Alma on Aug 31st as has
been suggested by such loonies - is that it was only pure chance that Diana
was in Paris that weekend at all.

There were no initial plans to spend the weekend there. As was pointed out
with much vehemence by the UK tabloids at the time was that she was actually
supposed to return to the UK several days earlier directly from Sardinia.

It was also pure chance that they decided to dine at the Ritz that evening
instead of his apartment - the decision being taken by Dodi.

Also the point about the car hitting the 13th pillar deliberately is just
ridiculous. The Mercedes slammed into the right side wall of the tunnel on
it's right-hand rear side first before it crashed into the pillar thereby
losing control.

Henri Paul must have been one hell of a driver to pull that one off at over
100 kph. Also, if it was important for her to be sacrificed on Aug 31st then
how could they have guaranteed this? The crash happened minutes after
midnight - pure chance yet again. They could have left The Ritz at any given
time during the evening.

Here is some information from the report of the accompanying Public
Prosecutor's report which will assist you with the facts and help explain
the supposed "ANOMALIES" some have invented over the accident.

"The experts NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and AMOUROUX, for their part, concluded that
the contact between the Mercedes and the Fiat "Uno" only consisted of a
simple scrape, which had not lead to a significant reduction in speed by the
Mercedes.
The speed at which the Mercedes was travelling was described as very fast by
all the witnesses, both during the journey along the banks [of the Seine]
and at the moment when it entered the tunnel.

Mr NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and Mr AMOUROUX estimated the speed of the Mercedes,
before the collision at a total of between a maximum of 155 km/hour and a
minimum of 118 km/hour and the speed, at the moment of the crash on the
thirteenth pillar of the Alma tunnel was between 95 and 109 km/hour with a
margin of error of more or less 10%.
They attributed the direct causes of the accident to this excessive speed
which, taking account of the particular profile of the road, had rendered
the vehicle difficult to control, all the more so because of the presence of
the Fiat "Uno" at the entrance of the tunnel and the fact that the driver of
the Mercedes had a very poor control of his vehicle.
They finally stated that Emad AL FAYED and Lady Diana SPENCER would have
survived if they had fastened their safety belts."

Here's the so-called "anomalies" -

1:Why were there no security cars. Someone with as high a profile as Diana
should have had at least one car behind and one in front

This was far from the case even when Diana was in London. She was well known
to go about her daily business with little or no security arrangements. Her
daily visits to the gymnasium in Chelsea, as well as frequent lunches at La
Caprice restaurant were nearly always conducted on her own. If you recall
there were numerous incidents of her being pursued by press photographers
when she was totally vulnerable on her own. She valued what little privacy
she had left and any opportunity to engage in normal activities were
enthusiastically embraced. As for Paris the report states:

"The Princess had not advised the British Embassy of her presence in France
and had not requested any particular protection from the French
 authorities."


2: Why did they use Henri Paul? He was not a qualified chauffeur.

>From the report:

"In fact, if the appointment of Henri PAUL as the driver poses a problem
about the awareness of his state on the evening in question and his
intemperance, it should also lead to an examination of the conditions in
which it had been decided to resort to a vehicle from the company Etoile
Limousine, whose fleet was made up of high powered cars, necessitating to
drive them, the possession of a special licence, which Mr Henri PAUL did not
possess.
(D1023 - D4936)
On this point the versions of the Ritz management and Jean François MUSA,
the manager of Etoiles Limousine, diverge : Jean François MUSA claimed that
he had expressed reticence when he heard that Henri PAUL would drive the
car, notably because he did not have an ad hoc licence, but no witness
confirms this point.
Jean François MUSA, who however admitted still allowing the use of the
vehicle, despite knowing that Henri PAUL was to drive it, justified this by
reason of the fact that he could not refuse what was asked of him.
Now, examining the nature of the commercial links which united the Ritz -
Jean-François MUSA used to drive for the Ritz - to the Etoile Limousine
company, one can see the total dependence of the Etoile Limousine company on
the Ritz, its only client, which put it in competition with another company
offering identical services - the MURDOCH company.
Finally, it is worth remembering that during the day Jean-François MUSA had
been used to drive the Range Rover for Emad AL FAYED and that the same
Jean-François MUSA, who did not belong officially to the staff of the Ritz,
had been used on different occasions in the same conditions, as if he were
still an employee of the hotel.
>From a general point of view, even if Emad AL FAYED and the Princess had not
gone down to the Ritz, the management and the staff of the institution as a
whole were put at the entire disposal from their arrival in Paris and Emad
AL FAYED had, as a last resort, the power to decide all matters."

3: Why did they bring up a new car? The Mercedes was an S280, lighter than
the cars used all day. There were other, heavier, more secure cars
available.

A Mercedes S280 is hardly a moped! From the report:

"The change in the programme: the diversionary tactics decide by Emad AL
FAYED:
(D2136)
As soon as he arrived at the Ritz, Emad AL FAYED, for his part, called
Thierry ROCHER, the night manager of the hotel to inform him of the
situation.
Learning from the latter that Henri PAUL had returned, he asked him to tell
him that they needed a third vehicle, placed in rue Cambon, at the back of
the building, to return to rue Arsène Houssaye, and that the two vehicles
used by the couple during the day would stay in Place Vendôme to create a
diversion.
(D1043 - D5073 - D2473)

Trevor REES JONES and Alexander WINGFIELD confirmed that the decision to use
a third vehicle had been taken by Emad AL FAYED and that it was he who had
asked Henri PAUL to drive it.
Emad AL FAYED had in addition stipulated that Trevor REES JONES should
accompany them.

The two bodyguards explained that they had expressed their disagreement with
these arrangements, but only in as far as they were to separate."


4: Why did Trevor Reese Jones put on his seatbelt as they were entering the
tunnel. Bodyguards are trained never to wear a seatbelt so they can be free
to protect their passengers.( His lapse of memory isn't very convincing
either, he apparently remembers everything up to the last minute.

He actually maintains that he fastened his seatbelt at The Ritz. His lapse
of memory in the moments before the crash is hardly surprising given the
fact he was in a coma suffering from severe head injuries.

5: Henri Paul took a detour from the route to Dodi's apartment taking them
to the Pont de L'alma.

Paul took the river road which runs parallel with the Champs Elysees. It was
the intention that the bulk of the photographers would follow the decoy cars
up until the busier Champs Elysees after the departure of the Mercedes 280.
Any photographers on route would have chosen the Champs Elysees - it's a far
busier route and progress is that much slower . The routes do not differ
greatly in distance between the Ritz and Dodi's apartment. The report reads:

"Finally Nicola ARSOV had stayed in front of the Ritz with some other
photographers, including Pierre HOUNSFIELD, and had finally followed the
Range Rover and the Mercedes 600 until the Champs Elysées, then avenue
Wilson, where he had left these two vehicles and turned into Cours Albert
1er to arrive at the Place de l'Alma."

6: Why were none of the cameras in or around the tunnel entrance working
that night.

Got me beat on that one. But I ask you - how would anyone have known
beforehand to put the cameras out of action given the fact that the actual
route wasn't decided upon until a short time before the car actually took
off.
There are numerous eye-witness accounts of the Mercedes entering the tunnel
at high speed.

7: Why did the Police radio go dead half an hour before the crash and come
back to life not long after?

What difference could that possible make - ambulance teams and police were
on the scene within minutes (see accompanying record)

8: Why did the ambulance take an hour and a half to reach the hospital.

Because it didn't. It took the best part of an hour for ambulance staff to
work on her at the scene and actually free her from the wreckage. That is
not exceptional in these situations. The journey to at Pitie Salpetriere
hospital took under 30 minutes and she went into cardiac arrest on route.
The report reads:

"Lady Diana Spencer received pre-hospital intensive care treatment, both
while she was trapped in the wreckage, from which she was finally released
at 1am, and during her transfer by ambulance, until her arrival at Pitie
Salpetriere hospital at 1.27hrs. During the transfer, resuscitation measures
were instigated following cardiac arrest.
However, despite intensive surgical intervention, doctors had no option but
to declare her dead at 4am.

The report submitted by professors Dominique LECOMTE and Andre LIENHART
concluded that the cause of death was a wound to the upper left pulmonary
vein, together with a rupture to the pericardium. The experts believed that
it was exceptional for a patient who had suffered such serious
intra-thoracic lesions to reach hospital alive, resuscitation had been in
accordance with pre-hospitalisation regulations. According to the experts,
the surgical team was beyond reproach, and no other surgical, anaesthetic or
resuscitation strategy could have prevented deterioration in the condition
of the patient."


9: There were four other hospitals nearer.

Maybe so - but the proximity of a hospital does not guarantee that it has
the requisite facilities/staff to deal with large scale trauma injuries.
Again:

"The experts believed that it was exceptional for a patient who had suffered
such serious intra-thoracic lesions to reach hospital alive, resuscitation
had been in accordance with pre-hospitalisation regulations. According to
the experts, the surgical team was beyond reproach, and no other surgical,
anaesthetic or resuscitation strategy could have prevented deterioration in
the condition of the patient."

10: Why has the Fiat Uno never been found?

>From the report:

First of all, as far as the possible role played in the accident by a Fiat
"Uno", the existence of which was revealed by the traces found on the
Mercedes, the experts' reports have underlined that, in every hypothesis,
its role could only have been a passive one.
(D2359 - D2371)
The driver of this Fiat "Uno" has not been able to be identified, despite
extremely long and detailed investigations which have been lead by the
enquiry team, who only had, to direct their research the witness statements
of a couple of drivers, who, at approximately the time which could
correspond to the accident, told of the abnormal behaviour of the driver of
a Fiat "Uno" crossing the Place de l'Alma in the direction of Boulogne.
(D2097)
Interrogated about the circumstances of the collision between this unknown
Fiat "Uno" and the Mercedes S280, the I.R.C.G.N. experts indicated that it
was a collision 'three quarters behind', and that at the moment of contact
between the two vehicles the speed of the Mercedes was faster than that of
the Fiat "Uno".
(D5433 to D5829)
The experts NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and AMOUROUX, for their part, concluded that
the contact between the Mercedes and the Fiat "Uno" only consisted of a
simple scrape, which had not lead to a significant reduction in speed by the
Mercedes.


11: Why have several key witnesses disappeared off the face of the earth?

Errr, which witnesses are you talking about.?

Oh someone has also implied that Trevor Rees-Jones has been given a cushy
number by the UN. The clear implication being that he was involved in
murdering her and the UN has rewarded him with "a top UN role" in in
luxurious East Timor. Well here is that "top UN role".

The bodyguard of Diana, Princess of Wales, who survived the Paris car crash
that killed her and Dodi Fayed, has begun a new life in East Timor.
Trevor Rees-Jones, 32, who underwent major reconstruction surgery following
the 1997 crash, is said to have taken up the post of deputy head of security
for the United Nations in Suai, East Timor.
The Times reported that Mr Rees-Jones is on a one-year contract alongside UN
peacekeepers from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Pakistan.
The former British paratrooper arrived on August 4 weeks after making a
pilgrimage for the first time to the Princess's resting place at Althorp,
Northamptonshire, the paper said.
He sleeps in a run-down building that has come under fire from militia, The
Times reported, and runs the risk of contracting dengue fever and malaria,
which have struck a quarter of Timor-based soldiers this year.
This comes as up to 10,000 people are expected to attend a memorial service
at Suai Cathedral to commemorate the first anniversary of the massacre of
200 men, women and children in the town.
The massacre took place last year in the aftermath of disturbances that
followed the 78% vote for independence from Indonesia.


Diana crash car doing 100kmh: official report
By SUSANNAH HERBERT
The car in which Princess Diana died was doing 100kmh when it crashed in
Paris, police investigators said yesterday.
The 500-page report on the wreck of the Mercedes-Benz S280 found that it had
no mechanical faults.
It appears to rule out rumors that the car was tampered with or sabotaged
before it swerved and hit the 13th pillar of the Pont d'Alma underpass on 31
August 1997, killing the Princess, her companion, Dodi al-Fayed, and their
driver, Henri Paul.
It also sharply reduces the initial estimates of the speed at which the car
was travelling.
Initial leaks from the police investigation said it had been moving at
between 139kmh and 179kmh.
Earliest newspaper reports, confirmed by police sources immediately after
the crash, claimed it was being driven by Mr Paul, who was found to be
drunk, at as much as 193kmh.
The report follows 13 months of close mechanical and forensic analysis by
the Criminological Research Institute of the National Gendarmerie, whose
experts dismantled the car and tested all its components.
The findings also contradict allegations that the car's automatic breaking
system was faulty or that its airbags may have inflated seconds before the
crash, blinding Mr Paul.
The theory that the airbags were faulty - which has also been overruled by
the technical report - was first circulated in February after a traumatology
specialist decided that the facial injuries of the sole survivor, Mr Fayed's
bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, indicated successive shocks.
The specialist suggested that the airbags could have been activated by an
initial minor impact seconds before the crash, but this could only have
happened if they were faulty and has therefore now been ruled out as a
theory.
The report, delivered yesterday to Mr Herve Stephan, one of the
investigating magistrates, confirms that the Mercedes clipped an
unidentified white Fiat Uno before swerving into the pillar, but sheds no
light on the Fiat's part in the crash.
Despite interviewing more than 3000 owners of white Fiat Unos, the police
have not found any useful information about the crash.
Mr Stephan, one of two magistrates in overall charge of the investigation,
is expected to draw heavily on the police technical findings in compiling
his own final report, due next year.
In the absence of evidence that it was caused by technical faults or
sabotage, he is likely to place great weight on the two least sensational
factors: the drunkenness of the driver and his speed.

The Final Report by the Paris Prosecutor's Office into the Crash on August
31, 1997


This is the first of three pages.

Examining Magistrate:
Mr Hervé STEPHAN
Ms Christine DEVIDAL
Substitute:
Ms Maud MOREL COUJARD
COURT OF THE FIRST INSTANCE
Public Prosecutor of the French Republic
Dept. : P5 GENERAL CRIMINAL LAW
No. of entry: GG
No. of case: 97 245 3009/9
No. of preliminary investigation: 65/97
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S LEGALLY BINDING JUDGMENT OF NO GROUNDS FOR PROSECUTION

The Public Prosecutor of the French Republic, at the court of the First
Instance,
Having examined the following enquiry against:
1) ARNAL Serge
D.O.B. 10th August 1961 in PARIS 12th district
Parents: Elie and Suzanne GENTILLET
Nationality: French
Freelance Photographer
Residing at:
25, rue de l'Eglise
92200 NEUILLY SUR SEINE
Charged: 2nd September 1997 (D796)
Placed in custody: 02/09/97 to 21/10/97
2) ARSOV Nikola
D.O.B. 20th April 1959 in SKOPJE (Yugoslavia)
Parents: Jordan and Ladjdovska ARSOV
Photographer
Residing at:
46, rue Paul Vaillant Couturier
92140 CLAMART
Charged: 2nd September 1997 (D797)
3) DARMON Stéphane
D.O.B. 27th May 1965 in PARIS 1st district
Parents: André and Suzy GUEZ
Messenger
Residing at:
7-9, rue Gaston Charles - P.O. Box No 49
94120 FONTENAY SOUS BOIS
Charged: 2nd September 1997 (D806)
Placed in custody: 02/09/97 to 21/10/97
4) LANGEVIN Jacques
D.O.B. 21st September 1953 in LAVAL (MAYENNE)
Parents: Marcel and Georgette AGUILLE
Freelance photographer
Residing at:
1 bis, avenue Georges Clémenceau
94300 VINCENNES
Charged: 2nd September 1997 (D803)
Placed in custody: 02/09/97 to 13/10/97
5) MARTINEZ Christian
D.O.B. 15th May 1954 in PARIS 12th district
Parents: François and Jeanine MORAND
Press photographer
Residing at:
4, place de Lattre de Tassigny
92300 LEVALLOIS PERRET
Charged: 2nd September 1997 (D813)
FREE SUBJECT TO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS PENDING TRIAL
Date of order: 2nd September 1997
6) RAT Romuald
D.O.B. 17th September 1971 in LE RAINCY (SEINE SAINT DENIS)
Parents: Michel and Marie-France GAUTREAU
Photographer
Residing at:
33, avenue Raspail
93100 MONTREUIL
Charged: 2nd September 1997 (D809)
FREE SUBJECT TO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS PENDING TRIAL
Date of order: 2nd September 1997
7) VERES Laslo
D.O.B. 1st December 1943 in BECEJ (Yugoslavia)
Parents: Pal and Ilona SABO
Photographer
Residing at:
92, avenue du Président Wilson
92800 PUTEAUX
Charged: 2nd September 1997 (D800)
8) ODEKERKEN David
D.O.B. 8th March 1971 in CRETEUIL (94)
Parents: Jean and Josiane DEBUYSERE
Freelance photographer
Residing at:
19, rue Raynouard
75016 PARIS
FREE SUBJECT TO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS PENDING TRIAL
Date of order: 2nd September 1997
9) CHASSERY Fabrice
D.O.B. 16th March 1967 in PARIS 12th district
Parents: Jean and Nicole PETON
Freelance photographer
Residing at:
12, rue de l'Est
92100 BOULOGNE BILLANCOURT
Charged: 5th September 1997 (D1299)
FREE SUBJECT TO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS PENDING TRIAL
Date of order: 5th September 1997
10) BENAMOU Serge
D.O.B. 15th September 1953 in SAIDA (Algeria)
Parents: Paul and Charlotte BENSOUSSAN
Photo-journalist
Residing at:
14, rue Simon Dereure
75018 PARIS
Charged: 5th September 1997 (D1305)
Placed in custody: 05/09/97 to 22/10/97
Under investigation charged with:
failing to assist people in danger
involuntary homicide involuntary injury,
ITT more than three months
Public Prosecutor's charge of 2nd September 1997 (D792)
PLAINTIFFS
Mr Jean PAUL
Mrs Jean PAUL
represented by : Mr Jean Pierre BRIZAY
Mr Mohammed AL FAYED
represented by: Mr Bernard DARTEVELLE and MR Georges KIEJMAN
Mrs Francis SHAND-KYDD
Mrs Sarah MC CORQUODALE
represented by: Mr Alain TOUCAS
Mr Trevor REES JONES
represented by : Mr Christian CURTIL

Part Two of the Final Report by the Paris Prosecutor's Office into the Crash
on August 31, 1997

This is the second of three pages.

WHEREAS THE ENQUIRY HAS ESTABLISHED THE FOLLOWING FACTS:
Initial Findings
(D706 -D709)
At 0.26 hrs on August 31, 1997, the switchboard at Paris fire brigade
headquarters received a code-18 emergency call informing them of a serious
traffic accident in the Pont d'Alma tunnel in Paris's 8th arrondissement.
(D55)
A few minutes later, a police patrol on Cours Albert 1er consisting of
officers Lino GAGLIADORNE and Sebastian DORZEE, patrolling Cours Albert 1er,
was told of the accident by passers by and made their way to the scene.
The first Paris fire brigade crew arrived at the scene at 0.32 hrs.
Inside the tunnel, in the Concorde-Boulogne lane, police and rescue services
discovered a black Mercedes vehicle, type S280, registration number 680
LTV75. The vehicle was badly damaged and had come to rest against the outer
wall of the tunnel, facing in the opposite direction to the normal flow of
traffic.
Four people were found inside the vehicle
- Lady Diana SPENCER, who had been sitting in the rear right passenger seat,
was still conscious and crouched on the floor of the vehicle with her back
to the road.
- At her side, stretched out on the rear seat, was Emad AL FAYED, who had
been sitting in the rear left passenger seat and appeared to be dead.
Nevertheless, fire officers were still trying - in vain - to resuscitate him
when he was pronounced dead by a doctor at 1.30hrs.
- In the front of the vehicle was the driver, Henri PAUL, the deputy
security manager at the Ritz hotel, who had been killed immediately and was
declared dead on removal from the wreckage.
- The front passenger was Trevor REES JONES, a body guard in the employment
of the Al FAYED family, who was still conscious and had suffered serious
multiple injuries to the face.
The two forward passengers' airbags had functioned normally.
Three people attended to the casualties: Dr Frédéric MAILLEZ, a doctor with
"SOS Médécin", and two volunteer fire officers, Dominique DALBY and a second
who is unnamed. All three had been driving in the opposite direction, and on
seeing the wrecked car, had stopped to go spontaneously to the aid of its
occupants.
In the tunnel, among the onlookers who had gathered around the vehicle,
several photographers were in action.
(D1602 - D1606)
The two police officers, GAGLIARDONE and DORZEE, had trouble keeping the
onlookers at bay in order to secure the scene and all the first witnesses
reported that the photographers, who had arrived at the scene almost
immediately, had pushed around the vehicle for the sole purpose of taking
pictures of the casualties.
Autopsy Conclusions
(D789 - D6858)
Autopsy examination concluded that Henri PAUL and Emad AL FAYED had both
suffered a rupture in the isthmus of the aorta and a fractured spine, with,
in the case of Henri PAUL, a medullar section in the dorsal region and in
the case of Emad AL FAYED a medullar section in the cervical region.
(D6833 - D6821)
Lady Diana Spencer received pre-hospital intensive care treatment, both
while she was trapped in the wreckage, from which she was finally released
at 1am, and during her transfer by ambulance, until her arrival at Pitie
Salpetriere hospital at 1.27hrs. During the transfer, resuscitation measures
were instigated following cardiac arrest.
However, despite intensive surgical intervention, doctors had no option but
to declare her dead at 4am.
The report submitted by professors Dominique LECOMTE and Andre LIENHART
concluded that the cause of death was a wound to the upper left pulmonary
vein, together with a rupture to the pericardium. The experts believed that
it was exceptional for a patient who had suffered such serious
intra-thoracic lesions to reach hospital alive, resuscitation had been in
accordance with pre-hospitalisation regulations. According to the experts,
the surgical team was beyond reproach, and no other surgical, anaesthetic or
resuscitation strategy could have prevented deterioration in the condition
of the patient.
(D6833)
The same experts pointed to the obviously traumatic origin of the injuries
to the three victims, stating that those suffered by the first two were
frequently observed in severe crash cases, head-on with extreme
deceleration, while those to Lady Diana SPENCER were more unusual and could
probably be explained by the victim's sideways position at the moment of
impact.
The opening of the enquiry ....
The Paris Prosecution Department, which immediately sent a representative to
the scene, entrusted the enquiry of the case to the Paris police crime
squad. It is in these conditions that several press photographers: Christian
MARTINEZ, from the Angely Agency, Romuald RAT from the Gamma Agency,
Stéphane DARMON, his companion, Jacques LANGEVIN, from the Sygma Agency,
Serge ARNAL, from the Steels Press Agency, Laslo VERES, independent
photographer and Nikola ARSOV, from the Sipa Presse, were taken in for
questioning because of their attitude at the scene.
(D792)
By Public Prosecutor's charge dated 2nd September 1997, the Paris
Prosecution Department asked for an enquiry to be opened against the above
named for failing to give assistance to persons in danger and, against
unnamed person, for homicide and involuntary injury.
(D796 - D797 - D800 - D803 - D809 - D813)
However the examining magistrate named to lead these proceeding put under
investigation all the people who were brought before him for all the charges
listed in the initial charge.
(D1299 - D1302 - D1305)
As three photographers had left the scene before the police arrived, Fabrice
CHASSERY, David ODEKERKEN and Serge BENAMOU, all independent photographers,
reported to the crime squad offices on 4th September 1997 and, on 5th
September 1997, were put under investigation for the same charges by the
investigating magistrate.
The paths explored by the enquiry:
-The enquiry, which was finally entrusted to two examining magistrates by
the Presiding Judge of the Court of Paris, because of the extent and
complexity of the investigations to be carried out, was going to clarify the
context in which the photographers had followed the Mercedes in which the
couple were travelling and the affect of their presence on the behaviour of
the driver of the vehicle immediately before the accident.
-In addition, the preliminary investigation file had to identify and examine
the attitude adopted by these same photographers in the moments which
immediately preceded the accident.
-The enquiry was also going to look into the conditions in which Henri PAUL
had taken the wheel of the Mercedes carrying the couple on the evening of
31st August 1997
(D816 - D828 -D1329 - D1332 - D1342 - D1519 - D1522 - D1524)
On this particular point, numerous experts' reports examined following the
autopsy on the body of Henri PAUL rapidly showed the presence of a level of
pure alcohol per litre of blood of between 1.73 and 1.75 grams, which is far
superior, in all cases, than the legal level.
Similarly, these analyses revealed as those carried out on samples of the
hair and bone marrow of the deceased, that he regularly consumed Prozac and
Tiapridal, both medicines which are not recommended for drivers, as they
provoke a change in the ability to be vigilant, particularly when they are
taken in combination with alcohol.
(D1514)
Finally, the amount of transferrin in the blood showed a level of 32 UI/l
[?], compatible, according to the experts with a chronic alcoholism over the
course of at least a week.
- Finally the investigations which were carried out both at the scene and on
the vehicle itself, allowed for the hypothesis of a possible collision with
another vehicle.
(D5433 to D5829 - D5969)
The Mercedes S280, in which the passengers were found, belonged to the
company Etoile Limousine and had been hired by this company to the Ritz
hotel, its only client. It was examined by the experts from the Institut de
Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale (I.R.C.G.N.), then by
NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and AMOUROUX, the experts commissioned by the examining
magistrates, who all concluded that it had a low mileage and was in perfect
mechanical and working order.
(D1023)
Jean-François MUSA, manager of Etoile Limousine, confirmed that, on 31st
August, it did not have any trace of accidental damage or scratches.
(D1372-D1835)
Now the investigations showed traces of whitish colour both on the front
right wing and on the body of the right wing mirror, found further on in the
tunnel.
The additional research carried out by I.R.C.G.N. showed traces, both on the
front right wing and on the body of the wing mirror, which came from the
same vehicle, whose technical characteristics corresponded to a vehicle make
Fiat "Uno", white in colour, built in Italy in the period 1983 to the end of
August 1987.
(D1506)
In addition, some red and white optical debris found on the right hand lane,
7 or 8 metres from the entrance to the Alma tunnel were described as also
coming from a rear light of a vehicle make Fiat "Uno", built in Italy in the
period May 1983 to September 1989.
The arrival in Paris of the couple Diana SPENCER and Emad AL FAYED:
The arrival of the couple in Paris and their movements during the day of
30th August 1997 mobilised a growing number of press photographers.
Lady Diana SPENCER, Princess of Wales, and her friend, Emad AL FAYED, had
landed at Le Bourget airport in the morning of the 30th August 1997 from
Sardinia, at the end of a Mediterranean cruise, where they had been followed
by a great number of the world's press.
The couple were accompanied by two English bodyguards, employed by the
private security of the AL FAYED family, Trevor REES JONES and Alexander
WINGFIELD.
Two vehicles were waiting for them, a Range Rover which was driven by Henri
PAUL, deputy security manager of the Ritz hotel, owned by the father of Emad
AL FAYED, Mohammed AL FAYED, and a Mercedes 600, driven by Philippe
DOURNEAU, Mohammed AL FAYED's official driver when he was in France.
The Princess had not advised the British Embassy of her presence in France
and had not requested any particular protection from the French authorities.
The press was present from their arrival: at the airport were: Fabrice
CHASSERY, at the wheel of a charcoal grey Peugeot 205, registration no. 5816
WJ 92, David ODEKERKEN was driving a beige Mitsubishi "Pajero" 4/4,
registration no.520 LPZ75, Romuald RAT and his driver, Stéphane DARMON, on a
dark blue Honda motorcycle, registration no. 302 LXT75 and Alain GUIZARD,
from the Angely Agency, was in a grey-blue Peugeot 205, registration no.3904
ZR 92, accompanied by three press motorcyclists from the same agency.
After a detour to one of the residences of the AL FAYED family, the Windsor
villa, situated on the Bois de Boulogne, Lady Diana SPENCER and Emad AL
FAYED went to the Ritz hotel.
(D1043 - D2473 -D1052)
During the different journeys, the photographers ended up losing sight of
the vehicles and only Alexander WINGFIELD recalled the dangerous behaviour
of some of them on the road. Trevor REES JONES and Philippe DOURNEAU, on the
other hand, testified that the photographers had always remained behind the
Range Rover.
At about 18.00hrs the couple, still in the Mercedes driven by Philippe
DOURNEAU, returned to the AL FAYED family hotel, rue Arsène Houssaye, very
close to the Arc de Triomphe, while Jean-François MUSA replaced Henri PAUL
at the wheel of the Range Rover.
(D2020)
Numerous photographers had again started to follow them at that moment, and,
according to Trevor REES JONES, he had asked them not to take photos during
the journey, a request which they respected.
(D2173 - D2178 - D1043 - D2020 - D1633)
However there were still more of them as the couple's car turned into rue
Arsène Houssaye, and there was then a jostling, followed by an incident
between Romuald RAT and the security personnel, an incident which was
quickly resolved by the intervention of Trevor REES JONES and Alexander
WINGFIELD.
As well as the photographers who were already present since Le Bourget,
there were in front of the building in the rue Arsène Houssaye, Serge
BENAMOU and Lalso VERES, who were both riding their scooters, as well as
Christian MARTINEZ and Serge ARNAL , who had come in the latter's car, a
Fiat black "UNO", registration no. 444 JNB 75.
(D2161)
During this time Henri PAUL, who was not on duty that evening, had left the
Ritz hotel at about 19.00hrs, telling the security guard, François TENDIL,
that he could always be reached on his mobile telephone.
(D5150)
Claude ROULET, the assistant of Franck Klein, the manager of the Ritz hotel,
who was not in Paris at that time, had, at the request of Emad AL FAYED,
reserved a table for the couple in a restaurant in the capital, where he had
gone to wait for them.
He cancelled this reservation at about 21.00, as Emad AL FAYED informed him
that, because of the crowds of journalists they were dining at the Ritz, in
the hope of getting some more peace.
Despite these precautions, when the Mercedes and the Range Rover arrived at
Place Vendôme, the photographers had followed them from the rue Arsène
Houssaye, and in front of the hotel there was a big crowds of curious
onlookers and journalists.
As the couple left their vehicle belatedly there was a crush at the moment
when they entered the hotel.
(D1043 - D5073)
This situation annoyed Emad AL FAYED, as testified by Trevor REES JONES and
Alexander WINGFIELD, who added that, not being made aware of the change of
programme until the journey to the Ritz, they were unable to anticipate the
difficulties.
(D2473)
Trevor REES JONES even stated: "Dodi took an active part in security
arrangements, he was the boss and in addition we did not know the programme
in advance, only he knew the programme."
(D2136)
Henri PAUL was informed of the incident by François TENDIL, who took the
initiative to return to the hotel, where he reported at 22.07 hrs, as seen
by the hotel surveillance camera.
(D2193)
Then he joined the two English body guards at the bar where he consumed two
glasses of "Ricard".
The change in the programme: the diversionary tactics decide by Emad AL
FAYED:
(D2136)
As soon as he arrived at the Ritz, Emad AL FAYED, for his part, called
Thierry ROCHER, the night manager of the hotel to inform him of the
situation.
Learning from the latter that Henri PAUL had returned, he asked him to tell
him that they needed a third vehicle, placed in rue Cambon, at the back of
the building, to return to rue Arsène Houssaye, and that the two vehicles
used by the couple during the day would stay in Place Vendôme to create a
diversion.
(D1043 - D5073 - D2473)
Trevor REES JONES and Alexander WINGFIELD confirmed that the decision to use
a third vehicle had been taken by Emad AL FAYED and that it was he who had
asked Henri PAUL to drive it.
Emad AL FAYED had in addition stipulated that Trevor REES JONES should
accompany them.
The two bodyguards explained that they had expressed their disagreement with
these arrangements, but only in as far as they were to separate.
None of them, however expressed any reservations on the capability of Henri
PAUL to drive. They stated that nothing in his behaviour lead them to think
that he was drunk and they claimed that they had not seen the types of
drinks that he had had.
(D2144 -D2156 - D2159 - D2169 -D2136)
In fact, of the four employees in charge of the bar that evening, only Alain
WILLAUMEZ noted that Henri PAUL was drunk; Thierry ROCHER, who went to tell
Henri PAUL the instructions from Emad AL FAYED found that his behaviour was
completely normal.
He stated that Henri PAUL had replied that "he was going to finish his
"Ricard" with the English".
The results of the analyses, notably of the amount of transferrin, showed
the existence of a certain amount chronic alcoholism and the testimony of
one of his closest friends, Dr Dominique MELO revealed that it was not an
isolated problem, as the latter had consulted him a year and a half
previously about the matter.
The enquiry was not able to establish formally is the employers of Henri
PAUL were in a position to know about this aspect of his personality: apart
from the testimony of Alain WILLAUMEZ, none of the other professional
colleagues of Henri PAUL had heard anything about this subject. He did have
the reputation of being someone who "enjoyed life".
He had been employed at the Ritz since 1985 and was well liked by the
management.
(D1011 - D1020 - D2213)
On a private level his best friends, his ex girlfriend, his neighbours, all
painted a portrait of a man who was both "shy" and at the same time "enjoyed
life". No-one seemed to have noticed the existence of a problem linked to
alcohol.
In fact, if the appointment of Henri PAUL as the driver poses a problem
about the awareness of his state on the evening in question and his
intemperance, it should also lead to an examination of the conditions in
which it had been decided to resort to a vehicle from the company Etoile
Limousine, whose fleet was made up of high powered cars, necessitating to
drive them, the possession of a special licence, which Mr Henri PAUL did not
possess.
(D1023 - D4936)
On this point the versions of the Ritz management and Jean François MUSA,
the manager of Etoiles Limousine, diverge : Jean François MUSA claimed that
he had expressed reticence when he heard that Henri PAUL would drive the
car, notably because he did not have an ad hoc licence, but no witness
confirms this point.
Jean François MUSA, who however admitted still allowing the use of the
vehicle, despite knowing that Henri PAUL was to drive it, justified this by
reason of the fact that he could not refuse what was asked of him.
Now, examining the nature of the commercial links which united the Ritz -
Jean-François MUSA used to drive for the Ritz - to the Etoile Limousine
company, one can see the total dependence of the Etoile Limousine company on
the Ritz, its only client, which put it in competition with another company
offering identical services - the MURDOCH company.
Finally, it is worth remembering that during the day Jean-François MUSA had
been used to drive the Range Rover for Emad AL FAYED and that the same
Jean-François MUSA, who did not belong officially to the staff of the Ritz,
had been used on different occasions in the same conditions, as if he were
still an employee of the hotel.
>From a general point of view, even if Emad AL FAYED and the Princess had not
gone down to the Ritz, the management and the staff of the institution as a
whole were put at the entire disposal from their arrival in Paris and Emad
AL FAYED had, as a last resort, the power to decide all matters.
While the diversionary manoeuvre was being prepared, the photographers were
still waiting in front of the hotel, in the Place Vendôme, and several more
arrived: notably Alain GUIZARD, Jacques LANGEVIN, who arrived in a grey Golf
registration no. 3765PL94, and Nikola ARSOV, driving a white BMW motorbike
registration 448 BNE 91.
Towards midnight, Philippe DOURNEAU and Jean-Francois MUSA simulated a fake
departure, driving around the Place Vendôme in the Mercedes 600 and the
Range Rover.
Several journalists noticed that Henri PAUL was behaving unusually towards
them that evening, coming to see them, and announcing the departure of the
couple as imminent. Several described him as "laughing, particularly
jovial".
Frederic LUCARD, the young valet in charge of driving the Mercedes S280 to
the Rue Cambon, confirmed the "jovial" discussions between Henri PAUL and
the journalists and even added - although he alone described it - that when
Henri PAUL took the wheel of the Mercedes in the Rue Cambon, he heard him
say to the journalists present: "Don't try to follow us, you'll never catch
us".
Anticipating the possibility of the couple's exit by the rear of the
building, Serge BENAMOU, Jacques LANGEVIN, Fabrice CHASSERY and Alain
GUIZARD went to the Rue Cambon and watched both the arrival of the Mercedes
S280 and the departure of the couple.
They then warned Romuald RAT, Christian MARTINEZ, Serge ARNAL and David
ODEKERKEN , who had stayed in front of the hotel.
Jacques LANGEVIN, Fabrice CHASSERY and Serge BENAMOU took a few pictures of
the couple, then the Mercedes left at speed.
It was then 12.20am on the hotel's surveillance camera clock in the Rue
Cambon.
The drive from the Ritz to Alma:
Among those under investigation, several confirmed they had followed the
same path as the Mercedes.
(D1636 - D1720 - D1710 - D1700 - D5033)
Thus, Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON, Serge ARNAL and Christian MARTINEZ
claimed that after a red light in the Place de la Concorde, the Mercedes
accelerated to a very high speed along the river, and that they rapidly lost
sight of it.
They had then slowed down at the exit of the first tunnel, thinking that the
Mercedes might have turned off, but they continued along the road, only
seeing the Mercedes again, this time involved in the accident, as they
approached the Alma tunnel.
(D1731 - D5033)
Serge BENAMOU had also followed the river, but rapidly left behind, he had
taken the first tunnel exit and arrived at the Place de l'Alma.
(D1688 - D4745 - D5033)
Jacques LANGEVIN meanwhile explained that his car had been parked in the Rue
Cambon, and after a detour through the Place Vendôme, he had decided to go
to meet friends for dinner. It was by chance, and some time later, that he
followed the same road as the Mercedes.
(D1648 - D5033)
David ODEKERKEN found himself behind the Mercedes until the Concorde red
traffic light. He claimed he had then decided not to follow further. He saw
the Mercedes depart in a whirlwind, followed by Serge ARNAL's vehicle, and
he was then overtaken by Romuald RAT and Stéphane DARMON. He explained that
to get to his home he had also by chance followed the Mercedes' route.
Consequently, none of the photographers admit that they "chased" the car
carrying the couple, nor that they had impeded his progress or taken
pictures en route. None of the negatives seized from the photographers show
pictures taken on the journey. Nor did any of them admit to having been
close enough to the Mercedes to have witnessed in the actual accident.
There were three photographers under investigation who claimed not even to
have tried to follow the Mercedes:
Laslo VERES stayed in front of the Ritz and only learned of the accident
later in a phone call from Serge BENAMOU. His story was confirmed by the
Ritz surveillance cameras, which established that at 12.26am he was still in
front of the hotel.
(D1675-D5033)
-Fabrice CHASSERY declared that, in agreement with David ODEKERKEN, he had
decided to not follow the car and that from the Place de la Concorde he had
taken the Champs Elysées, where a call from David ODEKERKEN informed him of
the accident.
-Finally Nicola ARSOV had stayed in front of the Ritz with some other
photographers, including Pierre HOUNSFIELD, and had finally followed the
Range Rover and the Mercedes 600 until the Champs Elysées, then avenue
Wilson, where he had left these two vehicles and turned into Cours Albert
1er to arrive at the Place de l'Alma.
In fact the critical examination of the accounts of the persons questioned
does not allow them to be radically called into question . . .
(D5293 - D7087 - D5969)
- In fact, as regards first of all Romuald RAT and Stéphane DARMON, the
experts' reports comparing the speed of the different vehicles established
that over 1400 metres, or the distance between the Avenue Champs Elysées and
the Pont de l'Alma, their motorcycle was slower than the Mercedes.
- As for Serge BENAMOU, who was driving a scooter, the question did not
arise, and the same can be said for Serge ARNAL, whose Fiat "Uno" could not
be compared with the Mercedes.
(D4911)
The moment's hesitation mentioned by Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON, Christian
MARTINEZ and Serge ARNAL at the exit of the first tunnel seems logical, in
as far as the exit towards the Place de l'Alma allowed access to the Avenue
Marceau and to thus follow directly on to the Rue de Presbourg and the Rue
Arsène Houssaye. This was moreover the route, which Philippe DOURNEAU was
taking in his Mercedes 600.
(D136 - D1459 - D1087 - D2352 - D141)
In addition, if some witnesses noted the presence of motorcycles behind the
Mercedes, or even their annoying behaviour during the journey between the
Place de la Concorde and the Alma tunnel, they did not state either the
number or the type.
(D1418 - D1426 - D1532 - D1536 - D2377 - D2363 - D1422 - D1448 - D1529)
Finally the witnesses situated, at the moment of the accident, opposite the
entrance to the tunnel, definitely noticed a motorcycle, but whereas
according to some of them it was following the Mercedes closely, according
to others, it did not arrive until after the accident. Above all they proved
incapable of describing it with a minimum of details.
- The explanations of David ODEKERKEN and Fabrice CHASSERY were not totally
convincing as Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON, Serge ARNAL, Christian MARTINEZ
and Serge BENAMOU confirmed having seen them behind the Mercedes at the red
traffic light at la Concorde.
Furthermore it is difficult to understand why professionals reputed to be
"persistent" and who had already waited for hours would have given up in
this manner.
But, there again, the presence of the David ODEKERKEN quite distinctive
vehicle was, however, neither noticed by the witnesses to the journey nor by
the witnesses to the accident.
(D6135)
In addition, on the list of telephone calls made, a call by David ODEKERKEN
to Fabrice CHASSERY at 00.24:05, or at a time which corresponds to minutes
after the accident, is identified, which would tend to confirm that they had
separated, perhaps in order to better "cover" all the possible routes.
- If the statements made by Nikola ARSOV do not correspond to the route
described by Philippe DOURNEAU, as being the one that he would have
followed, one cannot deduce with certainty that he had set off in pursuit of
the Mercedes.
(D2612 -D2392)
On the one hand the testimony of Pierre HOUNSFIELD, another reporter present
in front of the Ritz, confirmed that Nikola ARSOV had left the Place Vendôme
too late to be found immediately behind the Mercedes and, on the other hand,
if a witness, Jean-Louis BONNIN, stated that he had been overtaken on the
right bank [of the Seine] by a motorcycle with a number plate "91", like
that of Nikola ARSOV, he described two people on the motorcycle, when it has
been established that Nikola ARSOV was driving alone.
(D1057 - D5003)
- As for Jacques LANGEVIN, his position was only called into question by
Alain GUIZARD, who, in his first statement, had explained that he had seen
Jacques LANGEVIN's Golf in the group of vehicles behind the Mercedes at the
traffic light on the Place de la Concorde, but, when confronted, had not
confirmed this statement.
- Finally, the only survivor of the accident, Trevor REES JONES, suffering
from amnesia, had no memory of the part of the journey between the Ritz and
the Alma tunnel, and was not able to supply precise information on the
progress of the journey.
(D2473 - D4346)
The only thing he could confirm was the presence behind them leaving the Rue
Cambon of a scooter and a small light coloured car as well as, at the stop
at the traffic lights on Place de la Concorde, the presence of a motorcycle
at their sides, before the Mercedes sped off quickly in first position.
In conclusion, it is not possible to determine exactly which of the people
under examination who followed the Mercedes for the whole of the journey
right up to the place of the accident, as a doubt exists on this point with
regard to Fabrice CHASSERY and Nikola ARSOV.
As for those who had taken the same route as the Mercedes, their behaviour
on the road nor the exact speed is not known precisely.
And even if it is undeniable that they arrived in the tunnel a very short
time after the accident, one cannot estimate with any certainty what
distance they were away from the Mercedes at the moment where the latter
sped into the tunnel.
Finally, taking account of the technical findings of the I.R.C.G.N. experts,
one can state that none of the vehicles used by the people under examination
corresponds to the Fiat "Uno" which is likely to have been in collision with
the Mercedes.

Part Three of The Final Report by the Paris Prosecutor's Office into the
Crash on August 31, 1997

This is the third of three pages.

The analysis of the causes and the liability with regard to the crimes of
homicide and voluntary [sic.] injury:
First of all, as far as the possible role played in the accident by a Fiat
"Uno", the existence of which was revealed by the traces found on the
Mercedes, the experts' reports have underlined that, in every hypothesis,
its role could only have been a passive one.
(D2359 - D2371)
The driver of this Fiat "Uno" has not been able to be identified, despite
extremely long and detailed investigations which have been lead by the
enquiry team, who only had, to direct their research the witness statements
of a couple of drivers, who, at approximately the time which could
correspond to the accident, told of the abnormal behaviour of the driver of
a Fiat "Uno" crossing the Place de l'Alma in the direction of Boulogne.
(D2097)
Interrogated about the circumstances of the collision between this unknown
Fiat "Uno" and the Mercedes S280, the I.R.C.G.N. experts indicated that it
was a collision 'three quarters behind', and that at the moment of contact
between the two vehicles the speed of the Mercedes was faster than that of
the Fiat "Uno".
(D5433 to D5829)
The experts NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and AMOUROUX, for their part, concluded that
the contact between the Mercedes and the Fiat "Uno" only consisted of a
simple scrape, which had not lead to a significant reduction in speed by the
Mercedes.
The speed at which the Mercedes was travelling was described as very fast by
all the witnesses, both during the journey along the banks [of the Seine]
and at the moment when it entered the tunnel.
Mr NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and Mr AMOUROUX estimated the speed of the Mercedes,
before the collision at a total of between a maximum of 155 km/hour and a
minimum of 118 km/hour and the speed, at the moment of the crash on the
thirteenth pillar of the Alma tunnel was between 95 and 109 km/hour with a
margin of error of more or less 10%.
They attributed the direct causes of the accident to this excessive speed
which, taking account of the particular profile of the road, had rendered
the vehicle difficult to control, all the more so because of the presence of
the Fiat "Uno" at the entrance of the tunnel and the fact that the driver of
the Mercedes had a very poor control of his vehicle.
They finally stated that Emad AL FAYED and Lady Diana SPENCER would have
survived if they had fastened their safety belts.
Consequently from all of the investigations lead and from the different
expert reports it transpires that the direct cause of the accident is the
presence, at the wheel of the Mercedes S280, of a driver who had consumed a
considerable amount of alcohol, combined with the fact that he had recently
taken medication, driving at a speed not only faster than the maximum speed
limit in built up areas, but excessive when taking account of the layout of
the places and the predictable obstacles, notably the presence on his right
of a vehicle moving at a slower pace.
Therefore the loss of control of the vehicle by the driver in the Alma
tunnel constitutes the main cause of the accident.
Now, any possibility of pursuing this case is extinguished by the very fact
of its previous demise by setting in motion of the public action.
Therefore, in these conditions it remains that the criminal liability of
those persons under examination for homicide and involuntary injuries can
only be considered in terms of indirect cause since the direct cause of the
accident has thus been established.
In other words, the question is knowing whether the fact that a certain
number of photographers had undertaken to follow the vehicle carrying Diana
SPENCER and Emad AL FAYED played a contributory role, and a clear
contributory role, by creating psychological conditions whereby the driver
felt constrained to drive at an excessive speed.
This supposes first of all, therefore, that the photographers had "pursued"
the vehicle.
Now it is observed that, for the duration of the day, if the growing
presence of the photographers did legitimately irritate the Princess and her
companion, it was not unexpected, given the extreme media coverage of their
relationship, nor, given the amount of means and personnel at their
disposal, an event which had left them completely helpless.
The presence of these photographers during the day, although undesirable,
had not manifested itself in dangerous practices, nor in recourse to ruses
or subterfuges, all the photos taken showing clearly scenes in public.
Taking account of these elements, it is not possible to support the view
that this general context constitutes a hounding of the couple by the
photographers.
Secondly, this supposes researching how many photographers had followed the
couple, their number being able to play an important role in the creation of
a psychological effect on the driver, and who from among the photographers
had been able to play this role.
In this regard, a rigorous assessment of the charges against each of the
people under examination lead to eliminating Laslo VERES from any
responsibility, as it has been established that he had not followed the
Mercedes and to not uphold that of Fabrice CHASSERY and Nikola ARSOV for
whom there remains some doubt on this point.
Finally, with regard to Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON, Serge ARNAL, Christian
MARTINEZ, Serge BENAMOU, David ODEKERKEN and Jacques LANGEVIN, it is
necessary to determine with certainty if, at the moment when the driver lost
control of the vehicle, they were within sight of the Mercedes.
The enquiry not having being able to establish this, one cannot therefore
state that their presence provoked such a stress in the driver that it
definitely explains the speed taken.
In fact, in the hypothesis of a slower speed, or 118 km/hour, it is rather
rash to allude to a "fleeing" behaviour.
The speed adopted by the driver can also clearly be attributed to the
presence of alcohol in his blood, the effect of which was increased by the
medicines, and thereby characterise the psychological effect of a driver who
was totally uninhibited at the wheel of a powerful car and sure of having
distanced the photographers.
Consequently, it was not shown that at the moment when the driver lost
control of his vehicle, he found himself having to drive at speed, rendering
the accident inevitable.
One can only state that there is no clear underlying link between the speed
of the vehicle and the presence of photographers following the vehicle.
Therefore the charges of homicide and involuntary injury will be judged as
no grounds for prosecution with respect to Romuald RAT, Christian MARTINEZ,
Stéphane DARMON, Jacques LANGEVIN, Serge ARNAL, Laslo VERES, Nikola ARSOV,
Fabrice CHASSERY, David ODEKERKEN and Serge BENAMOU.
-The establishment of an incidental civil claim for damages by Trevor Rees
Jones:
(D6927)
On 23rd September 1998, alongside the preliminary investigation of the case
opened on 2nd September 1997, Trevor REES JONES' counsel lodged a claim for
damages against X for having put in danger the life of another person, by
reason of the fact that, by putting at the Ritz' disposal a powerful car
without a driver who held a licence as required by the regulations, the
managers of the Etoile Limousine company had directly exposed Trevor REES
JONES to the risk of death, mutilation or permanent disability.
This claim was followed on 2nd November 1998 by the opening of an enquiry
and, by reason of the connection with the enquiry opened 2nd September 1997,
a joinder order was made on 30th November 1998.
This claim could not go ahead, in as far as, on the one hand the crime of
having endangered the life of another person is only constituted in the
absence of harmful result, which is not the case of Trevor REES JONES, as he
presented with numerous traumatic lesions following the accident of 31st
August 1997 and the experts commissioned to evaluate the gravity [of his
injuries] and determine the resulting ITT, concluded on 2nd October 1997
that the initial ITT was still in course and would not be less than six
months (D1736).
On the other hand, in order to establish the crime, it is necessary to show
that the manifestly deliberate violation of a particular safety or
cautionary obligation imposed by law or regulations has directly exposed
another person to an immediate risk of death, mutilation or permanent
disability.
One cannot sustain in the matter of the non-respect of the provisions of the
decree of the 15th July 1955 and the decree of 18th April 1966, which impose
for the driving of high powered vehicles, the possession of a special
licence, has directly exposed the plaintiff to an immediate risk of death,
mutilation or permanent disability, it being a matter of carrying out a
relatively short journey in town, i.e. in a secure road environment and on
board a vehicle, certainly high powered, but technically accessible to the
holders of a Category B driving licence.
Consequently the claim will be judged as there being no grounds for
prosecution.
-After the accident: liability with regard to the crime of failing to come
to the aid of people in danger:
In order to come to a decision regarding each of the persons under
examination on the imputability of the facts with regard to not coming to
the aid of people in danger, first of all requires the establishment, with
utmost exactitude, of the time sequence of events after the accident
occurred, in order to define the exact period during which they can be
legitimately charged with voluntary abstention.
Taking account of the multiplicity of sources of information, which cannot
be synchronised with certainty, the sequence of the events has been
established based on several factors:
The first source comes from the recording of the security cameras at the
Ritz hotel, where the internal clock indicated the departure of the Mercedes
from the Rue Cambon at 00.20.
Then come the telephone switchboards of the emergency services:
- at the number "18", the number of the main Fire Station, the first call
was received at 00.26, the call from Dr. MAILLEZ who arrived on the scene at
almost the same period of time;
- at the number "17", emergency number for the police, the first call was
recorded at 00.29:59.
(D6212)
Thirdly, numerous pieces of information were obtained from the listings,
supplied by the mobile telephone operators Itinéris and SFR, of all the
calls made from a portable telephone on 30th and 31st August 1997, between
midnight and one o'clock in the morning, in the Concorde/Vendôme/Alma areas.
(D6135 - D6106)
Thus one finds a first call to "18" at 00.23:43, from Paul CARRIL's mobile,
who declared having called as soon as he heard the crash.
(D6132 - D6134 - D159 - D6131 - D6128 - D6127 - D6126 - D6125)
This first call was followed by a number of others both to "18" and to
"112", the emergency number which is common to Itinéris and SFR.
(D6139)
In addition the listing mentions, at 00.23, a call from Serge ARNAL's mobile
to "12".
(D50)
Finally the emergency services themselves constitute the last source of
information, as the police commander having received the call from the
GAGLIARDONE/DORZEE patrol indicated that it was then 00.30, while the report
established by the fireman mentioned that the first crew arrived at 00.32.
In spite of an inevitable margin of error, it is accepted therefore that a
short time passed between the departure from the Rue Cambon and the
occurrence of the accident, as well as the existence, in very quick
succession of a large number of calls to the emergency services then the
rapid arrival of these services.
Equally one notes that the call from Dr MAILLEZ to the firemen happened a
very short time after the accident, which is to be emphasized, as from the
moment when the doctor was at the location and took charge of things, the
legal obligation to personally act is no longer imposed with the same force
for any non specialists present at the scene.
(D1610)
In fact it transpires from the time sequence of the different calls and from
the testimony of Mark BUTT, who accompanied Dr MAILLEZ, that when Dr MAILLEZ
left his vehicle, which was stopped on the opposite carriageway, to assists
the injured, the first policemen had not yet arrived.
It is consequently in the few minutes preceding Dr MAILLEZ's arrival that
the attitude of the different people under examination can be usefully
considered by piecing together their statements, the analysis of the photos
which they took and the statements of the witnesses most directly involved.
In fact, the enquiry was able to piece together the existence of a small
group of witnesses present at the scene before the arrival of Dr MAILLEZ,
knowing that other onlookers had equally appeared very quickly on the scene,
as seen on the photographs, but without being able to be identified.
(D2396 - D6086)
- Belkacem BOUZID and Abdelatif REDJIL, walking in the Place de la Reine
Astrid, explained that they rushed into the tunnel as soon as they heard the
crash.
Belkacem BOUZID stated that he then saw four photographers in action, among
whom he identified Romuald RAT, while Abdelatif REDJIL claimed that they had
been the first on the scene, even before a first photographer, who got off a
motorcycle and whom he identified as being Romual[d] RAT.
It is worth noting that Adelatif REDJIL could only be heard rather
belatedly.
However they are both identifiable on different photos, Belkacem BOUZID,
dressed in a mustard coloured jacket and Abdelatif REDJIL in blue jeans and
a green jacket (D191, D368, D457).
- Two young people had left a car travelling in the opposite direction to go
to the vehicle involved in the accident: Damien DALBY, a voluntary fireman,
and his brother Sébastien PENNEQUIN.
(D121 - D1266 - D4928 - D123 - D1259 - D4940)
They explained that at least four photographers were already there, and they
identified Romuald RAT, whom they described as kneeling in front of the open
back right door, the scene which was found on a photograph by Christian
MARTINEZ (DD473).
They heard him shout in the direction of another photographer who was moving
away: "she is alive", then saw him push back the other photographers.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Birds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 4:57 PM
Subject: [CTRL] Reply to NSA The Diana Forum


> The Royal Family is dirty as dirty gets.  Diana was killed for more reason
than the land minds.  Much much more.  Elizabeth wanted
> her gone.  Also there was her boyfriend and no one knows what really
happened, but it was no damn accident.  Who races that fast
> with the queen in the car and Dodi would have said something about that.
>
>
> In answer to this:
> > Frankly "Birds" I think you are either nuts or a mindless sycophant of
> > garrulous media hype.
> >
>
>
> Well if nuts is being me, I'd rather be nuts that someone "sane" like
yourself.
>
> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing
propagandic
> screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not soap-boxing-please!  These are
> sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'-with its many half-truths, mis-
> directions and outright frauds-is used politically by different groups
with
> major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and
thought.
> That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
> always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
> credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
>  <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
>  <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om