6 February 2008 - Afternoon session
11 (1.30 pm)
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is Dr Baccino there?
13 THE WITNESS: I am here.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You can hear me, can you?
15 THE WITNESS: I can hear you.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We are grateful to you for
17 coming -- is it Dr Baccino or Professor Baccino?
18 A. I am Professor Baccino.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Professor, we are very grateful
20 to you for coming and I know that you have had
21 difficulties making your arrangements today. We have in
22 fact changed arrangements on four occasions to
23 considerable inconvenience of other people. I have just
24 received a message that you have only half an hour this
25 afternoon --
40
1 A. No, an hour, an hour. I can leave at 3.15 or 3.30 to
2 the maximum, so it gives us an hour.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will do our best to finish
4 your evidence as soon as possible, but it would cause
5 very great inconvenience to a number of other people if
6 you had suddenly to leave before it has been completed.
7 So we will press on as quickly as we can.
8 A. Okay.
9 MR HILLIARD: Madame Interpreter, can the Professor please
10 either take the oath or an affirmation.
11 THE WITNESS: So do I have to swear?
12 PROFESSOR ERIC BACCINO (affirmed)
13 (Evidence via videolink)
14 Questions from MR HILLIARD
15 MR HILLIARD: Is your name Professor Eric Baccino?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Professor, I am going to ask you some questions first of
18 all on behalf of the Coroner and then you may be asked
19 some other questions.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. We have the interpreter there, but are you happy to
22 carry on in English?
23 A. I will try to do my best and we will see if it is
24 possible or not. But I would like if possible to have
25 the sound a little bit louder from you. Is it possible?
41
1 Q. Probably not. It is only if I shout here, it is
2 unbearable for everybody else in the room.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will cope!
4 A. So we are trying to manage it here.
5 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much.
6 Professor, are you still the head of the forensics
7 department at the University of Montpellier Hospital in
8 France?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you help us first of all please with -- very
11 briefly -- but just your medical qualifications and your
12 experience?
13 A. Okay, I have three specialties: clinical internal
14 medicine, gastro-enterology and for 15 years I am doing
15 only legal medicine. So I am a legal doctor in
16 the French meaning, which means that I perform
17 autopsies. On an average I perform 60 per year and
18 I also do what you do in England as the police surgeon
19 activities. So I am doing also a lot of clinical
20 forensic medicine.
21 So I was trained in France. I graduated as
22 a forensic doctor in 19 -- and I spent eight months
23 performing autopsies at the Los Angeles coroner's office
24 in 1987/1988, so that is where I got most of my
25 practical training in autopsies.
42
1 Q. Professor, I want to ask you about an autopsy you
2 conducted on somebody called James Andanson, all right?
3 A. Yes. Do you want me to report what I have done?
4 Q. In a minute I do. I just want to do a bit of
5 the background first of all.
6 I think you know that on 4th May 2000, at about half
7 past 9 in the evening, the emergency services were
8 alerted to a fire in a forest area known as
9 "La Loulette". Is that right?
10 A. La Loulette. Le Foret La Loulette.
11 Q. Can you help us? Montpellier, where your university is,
12 is this right, is in the South of France on the coast?
13 A. Yes, it is the South of France, about 150 kilometres
14 south from the place where the body was found.
15 Q. That answers my question, thank you.
16 Again, Professor, just to summarise the background
17 before we come onto your work. I think the fire service
18 were sent to the area and they found a vehicle which was
19 alight and there was somebody in the car.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Then, in due course, the police went to the scene, and
22 so it was that you were asked to go to the scene
23 the next day, on 5th May 2000. Is that right?
24 A. It is right. I was on duty and I arrived at the scene
25 at 5.15 pm on 5th May.
43
1 Q. Thank you. You prepared a report, is this right, of
2 what it was that you saw when you went there on the 5th?
3 Do you have your report there?
4 A. I made a written report which I had kept a copy of.
5 Q. If you could follow, Professor, in the French and I have
6 an English translation here, which I shall just read for
7 the benefit of the jury, all right, but will you follow
8 in your original?
9 A. Okay. I can also make you a synthesis of what I have
10 seen, if you want; a summary.
11 Q. You do that if you like and then we will look at your
12 report.
13 A. Okay. So do you want me to report on my activity at
14 the scene?
15 Q. If you would. Professor, just one other thing to bear
16 in mind is that everything you say is being written
17 down, and so if you could just not go too quickly and
18 break it up so that everything goes down. All right?
19 Thank you.
20 A. So when I arrived at the scene I was told that there was
21 an unidentified charred body which was found in a burnt
22 BMW 316 and the police officers thought that it could be
23 a man of 56 years with a weight of 100 kilograms. So
24 what I have seen -- and I have taken a picture of
25 that -- is a white BMW completely charred and seated at
44
1 the driver's seat, the remains, badly charred, badly
2 burnt, which I could identify were the remains of a
3 male, because of the general appearance of the pubic
4 synthesis which was typically of the male type, and also
5 I could give information about the race, the ancestry of
6 these remains, because of the appearance of the nose
7 which was typically caucasian and narrow.
8 I think it was of interest to go to the scene
9 because the body was so badly damaged that examination
10 of the seat allowed me to find evidence and find which
11 have disappeared due to the transportation from
12 the scene to the Medico Legal Institute.
13 So that is why I found some dental treatments, which
14 I collected at the scene, and also I could say that
15 the cadaver was seated in a normal position. It was
16 seated like -- the remains were in the position of
17 somebody who burnt while he was seated at this place,
18 with his shoes on, because we found, below the feet,
19 the remains of the foot soles which were glued and
20 attached to the remains.
21 So it was what I found. The position was seated
22 slightly bended to the right. That is it.
23 Q. Right.
24 A. So my conclusion was an unidentified body of a man, of
25 caucasian type, and that was my conclusion at the end of
45
1 the scene examination.
2 Q. I am just looking at the report that you prepared, your
3 first report, because you told us today that police
4 officers had told you that it could be a man of 56 years
5 of age, with a weight of 100 kilograms.
6 A. That was the information which was given to me by
7 the police officers, before I started to examine
8 the body.
9 Q. Absolutely. Now obviously they could not tell that by
10 looking at what was in the car, and your report says
11 this: the owner of the car is reportedly a 56-year-old
12 man weighing 100 kilograms. That would make more sense,
13 wouldn't it, that they had --
14 A. It is what they told me.
15 Q. So they had found out by that time who the owner of the
16 car was and found out something about him on the face of
17 it.
18 A. I do not know if they found out, but they had some type
19 of information, of a guess.
20 Q. All right. You have told us that in due course
21 the remains, is this right, were transported away from
22 the scene? Is this right, that what was there
23 effectively collapsed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I want to ask you about what you could see before
46
1 the remains collapsed, when they were gathered up, and,
2 in particular, about the skull. Were you able to see
3 signs of a hole in the left temple area; do you
4 remember?
5 A. I was not able to see a hole because the cranium was so
6 badly fractured that he was open in many places. My
7 only remark about the fracture of the cranium were about
8 the fact that they were looking like heat fractures or
9 fractures due to heat and there was no sign at the scene
10 of a fracture which could have been the consequence of
11 a blunt force injury. But I did not identify one hole.
12 You know, all the -- most of the skull bones were
13 fractured by the heat and it is usual in this type of --
14 this kind of scene.
15 Q. Then, Professor, the next thing I would like to look at
16 with you is the autopsy report. Have you got a copy of
17 that in front of you?
18 A. I have it.
19 Q. That is dated May 10th 2000. Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Again, if you can follow in the original and I am just
22 going to start like this, because you set out, didn't
23 you, at the beginning, your instructions? It is headed
24 this:
25 "Experts: Dr Anne Dorandeu [and then yourself]
47
1 Professor Eric Baccino."
2 It says:
3 "Autopsy of the body of X, La Loulette Forest."
4 Then it says:
5 "We, the undersigned, Dr Anne Dorandeu and
6 Professor Eric Baccino, forensic examiners, experts at
7 the Montpellier Court of Appeal, pursuant to
8 a requisition of May 5th 2000, issued by Mrs Rochette
9 acting as investigating judge received as mission ..."
10 Then this:
11 "... considering the necessity of establishing
12 the circumstances and causes of the death of the person
13 discovered on May 4th 2000 at 10.30 pm in the territory
14 of the town of Nant in the La Loulette Forest in the BMW
15 vehicle registered under the number 2085 SM 18."
16 Then these jobs:
17 "... to perform the complete autopsy of the corpse
18 in the custody of the Forensics Institute; to establish
19 the circumstances and causes of death and to seek all
20 evidence of crimes or offences; to provide a detailed
21 description of the corpse and to perform all x-ray
22 examinations which may appear useful for
23 the manifestation of the truth, possibly the taking of
24 x-ray or photographic images; to seize and place under
25 seal all projectiles or other objects which may be
48
1 discovered in the body; to take two blood samples, and
2 in the event of necessity, the viscera."
3 So, Professor, that is the job that you and
4 Dr Dorandeu were given; is that right?
5 A. That is right.
6 Q. In the report that you completed with her, did you go on
7 to say this?
8 "We certify that we performed our mission to
9 the best of our honour, awareness and objectivity on
10 May 10th 2000, 10 o'clock in the morning, in the morgue
11 of the forensics department at the hospital in
12 Montpellier and that we recorded the results in
13 the following report, the contents of which we certify
14 are sincere and true."
15 Is that how it starts?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then, Professor, you have a section, is this right,
18 headed "Background", and you went through those things
19 that you have already told us about; is that right?
20 A. Yes, the background is what is told to us by the police
21 officers who are present at the autopsy. So it is
22 a report of the investigation.
23 Q. Did you explain in that that the only organ which
24 remained totally identifiable was his liver and did you
25 say that you had also found dental fragments there?
49
1 You went on to deal, is this right, in a section
2 with the examination of the body?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You pointed out that the skull had been still visible in
5 the car when you were there, but that it had not
6 withstood the handling that was necessary to move it
7 from the scene.
8 A. Yes. The skull fragments fell apart during the
9 transportation.
10 Q. Did you explain in the report that a dental examination
11 had been performed by a Mr Montoux who was looking at
12 what was left to see if the body could be identified
13 from dental records?
14 A. That is right. Do you have a report or not?
15 Q. We do. We do.
16 A. She is our reference of forensic odontologist.
17 Q. I am turning to the next page, towards the bottom of it.
18 You dealt with some indications that you found that
19 might have indicated that carbon monoxide poisoning had
20 taken place. Can you just tell us what those
21 indications were? What was it that you found?
22 A. So do you want an explanation about the meaning of
23 carbon monoxide in such an autopsy or where do I find
24 signs of maybe high level of carbon monoxide?
25 Q. Does it come to this -- you tell me if this is right or
50
1 wrong -- if you found signs that carbon monoxide had
2 been inhaled, that would provide you with evidence that
3 he had been alive when the fire had started and thus
4 able to breathe it in. That is why it matters. Is that
5 right?
6 A. That is right. In such an autopsy case, we have two
7 main concerns. The first concern is identification.
8 We talked about it already. The second concern was: was
9 he alive when the fire started because you know that
10 fire is very damaging and is a good way to try to hide
11 evidences. So when there is a sign of inhalation,
12 respiration while the fire was going on, that is a good
13 sign. A bad sign of that is the presence of carbon
14 monoxide because most of the fire will rise the level of
15 carbon monoxide in the blood.
16 So one sign, microscopical sign of carbon monoxide,
17 is a colour, the pinky colour of the tissue when they
18 remain or a very bright colour of the blood when there
19 is some blood left in the body. So in two cases in this
20 autopsy case, I found a pinky colour of the vessels,
21 suggesting that there might be some kind of carbon
22 monoxide high level in this case, but of course it had
23 to be confirmed by the toxicology analysers.
24 Q. We will come on to that in a minute. Was that something
25 that was done in this case as well?
51
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We will come back to that.
3 The next thing I want to ask you about is on the
4 next page of your report: were you in possession of
5 a large number of fragments of bone which all displayed
6 aspects of post-mortem fracture; so fracturing after
7 death?
8 A. It is not exactly what I have written. What I wrote was
9 that there were many fragments due to the fact that,
10 during the transportation, the body was dislocated.
11 What I said and wrote was that all the fractures I saw
12 were compatible with each, related, and so peri-mortem
13 fracture.
14 I did not find in this puzzle, which was the body at
15 this time, I did not find any sign of a pre-mortem
16 fracture, which means with a blood infiltration or a
17 spirit(?) aspect, which is usually the indication of
18 a pre-mortem fracture. All the fractures I found were
19 compatible with each related lesions and damages.
20 Q. Then, on the next page of your report, Professor, you
21 dealt with samples that were taken. It would be rather
22 laborious, but there is a reason. I am afraid I am
23 going to have to go through each of them, all right?
24 Does your Lordship report say this?
25 Samplings:
52
1 "For the purposes of toxicological analyses,
2 fragments of muscle taken from the cervical ..."
3 Is that "rachis region"? Where is that?
4 A. Cervical spine.
5 Q. "... two brain fragments ..."
6 Then if I am reading it right:
7 "... two meninges fragments ..."
8 Whereabouts is that?
9 A. "Meninges" is the envelope of the brain. It is
10 the envelope which protects the brain from the skull.
11 Q. "... two muscle fragments taken from the buttocks, two
12 liver fragments, one fragment of clotted blood from
13 the portal trunk ..."
14 What is that?
15 A. The portal trunk is a big vein which goes from the heart
16 to the abdomen. It is just before the heart, abdominal
17 aorta.
18 Q. Then this section ends "... one fragment of cardiac
19 clots". Then the next section:
20 "For anatamo-pathological purposes, one liver
21 fragment, one fragment of a sample taken in the vicinity
22 of the liver of unidentified origin."
23 Then the next section:
24 "For the purposes of identification for genetic
25 imprints ..."
53
1 Is that what we think of as DNA testing?
2 A. Yes, DNA fingerprints.
3 Q. "... two fragments of muscle from the cervical area
4 again, two brain fragments, two fragments from gluteal
5 muscular mass and two liver fragments."
6 So those were samples that were taken. Were they
7 taken by you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I am afraid there is a reason for going into all this
10 detail. What did you do with them? Once you had taken
11 the sample, what did you do with them?
12 A. For toxicology, I put them in empty vials, for histology
13 I put them in vials with formaldehyde and for DNA, also
14 I put them in empty vials. Then I gave them to
15 the police investigators who are present in the autopsy
16 room and they sealed them, and once they have sealed
17 them, I have to sign the fact that this sample has been
18 sealed by the police officer.
19 So some of them will be stored in my unit, namely
20 toxicology samples and histology samples, because
21 we manage them ourselves or in our hospital and
22 genetical samples, DNA fingerprint samples, will be
23 taken away immediately by the police officer because
24 the analysis is not made in Montpellier.
25 For the toxicology samples, they are stored in
54
1 different refrigerators. We have different coldrooms at
2 different levels of temperature, down to minus 80 if
3 necessary. Once the toxicological expert needs them to
4 perform his analysis, he takes them from
5 the refrigerator of the Medico Legal unit.
6 For the histology sample, Anne Dorandeau is the one
7 in our team which have both specialties, forensic
8 medicine and forensic histo-pathology. By the way,
9 she spent three months in London at Professor Shepherd's
10 unit a couple of years ago and she is in charge of
11 performing the histology analysis. So she is our own
12 histology expert.
13 Q. Can I interrupt you? The reason is this: I am going to
14 ask you in a minute about a result that was reported for
15 the level of carboxyhaemoglobin, all right?
16 I am told that there may be an issue as to whether
17 the result that you are going to tell us about relates
18 to the sample that was taken in this autopsy or
19 a completely different one.
20 MR MANSFIELD: Let me make it clear, so that we can speed it
21 up. The question is: where did the sample that was
22 analysed come from? Not a different autopsy. That is
23 a different issue. Same autopsy --
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is a relief.
25 MR HILLIARD: You might get away in time after all,
55
1 Professor.
2 A. I did not hear what I have been told.
3 Q. That is going to be much shorter than I thought. We
4 will just proceed on and then we will come to
5 the result. We will come back to that.
6 Now, you have a section in your report that says
7 "Discussion", all right? Does it say this?
8 "According to the examination of the remains of the
9 body found dead in a BMW-type car during the evening of
10 May 4th 2000, we can say that, 1, the bones examined are
11 the bones of one single caucasian male of 50 or over.
12 It is impossible to determine the size, given that no
13 long bones survived or could be reconstructed.
14 Furthermore, the corpse could be identified positively
15 and formally due to the number of prostheses and bridges
16 found and the specific nature of such dental care."
17 But of course, you say that on the condition that
18 we have information from life, you can make
19 the comparison.
20 A. You have to have information.
21 Q. You say:
22 "If this dental information from life is not
23 available, a study of the genetic imprints using
24 the samplings taken from the muscles, liver and brain
25 can be attempted, but [you say] with limited chances of
56
1 success due to the sensitivity of DNA to heat."
2 Then you say:
3 "All of the fracture zones discovered are compatible
4 with the lesions caused by the heat."
5 I will come back to that in a moment. Then you
6 said:
7 "The residual muscular masses on the cervical level
8 and on the gluteal level display a pinkish colouring
9 such as those found following intoxications due to
10 carbon monoxide, which would indicate that the person
11 was alive when the fire broke out. However, these data
12 cannot be confirmed until after the toxicological
13 examination performed to determine the amount of carbon
14 monoxide and possibly cyanide which is also released in
15 certain cases of combustion."
16 Just before we come back to that, at the end of your
17 report, did you say this?
18 "The autopsy did not reveal traces of violent
19 treatment, with the exception of the traumatic
20 destruction caused by the heat of a fire which destroyed
21 the body very extensively."
22 Right. You refer there to the necessity for
23 toxicological examination on the question of carbon
24 monoxide and you wrote a further report, Professor,
25 I think, on 26th July of 2000. Do you have that there?
57
1 A. Yes, yes, I have it.
2 Q. This report, by this time, is headed, "Autopsy of
3 the body of X, Forest of La Loulette, identified as
4 Mr Andanson, Jean-Paul".
5 Correct?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. What was it, please, that you set out in this report?
8 A. I said that the presence of a very high level of carbon
9 monoxide in the dehydrated blood which was analysed by
10 the doctor, Jean-Claude Mathieu-Daude -- this high level
11 was evidence of the fact that this person was alive when
12 the fire broke out.
13 Q. The level, is this right, that he had reported was
14 a level of 98 per cent?
15 A. That is right.
16 Q. We have here, Professor -- I do not know if you have it
17 there, but it is [INQ0051089], which is
18 Dr Mathieu-Daude's report.
19 A. I have it.
20 Q. You have it? Right. I do not know whether it helps
21 possibly by reference to that, the question is:
22 the sample that he looked at to determine the level of
23 carboxyhaemoglobin, can you help us with whereabouts
24 that sample had come from?
25 A. The sample, as I mentioned in my autopsy report, came
58
1 from the portal vein, which is, as I told you, located
2 in front of the aorta going to the liver. I think in
3 this report that Dr Jean-Claude Mathieu-Daude mentioned
4 that his sample had been collected from the aorta.
5 Q. Yes. He says, top of the second page I think -- is that
6 where you are looking at?
7 A. Yes, second page up, top.
8 Q. Was he right about that?
9 A. No, I think that the toxicologist usually works on
10 the sample from -- no, I do not know why he mentioned
11 aorta. Maybe it was written on the sample that it was
12 aorta and a mistake could have been made because aorta
13 is very close to the portal vein.
14 Q. But you understand --
15 A. I think that if he mentioned that, I do not know why.
16 Either he made a mistake reporting "aorta" instead of
17 "vena porte" or we made a mistake by tagging
18 inappropriately the blood sample "aorta", instead of
19 "portal vein". I do not know why he mentioned "aorta"
20 instead of "portal vein".
21 Q. You understand that in this instance, there is no
22 suggestion -- we have heard it said -- that the sample
23 that he looked at had not come from the autopsy that you
24 were conducting on Mr Andanson. There is no dispute
25 about that. What we want to be clear about is
59
1 whereabouts on Mr Andanson you had taken the blood from.
2 A. Here (indicating).
3 Q. From the portal vein, did you say?
4 A. Yes.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Does it make any difference
6 whether the sample in fact came from the aorta or
7 the portal vein?
8 A. Not in this case.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
10 A. In this case, the difficulty is to get some blood
11 because sometimes you do not get even blood because it
12 has been destroyed, but it is -- for carbon monoxide
13 intoxication, it is not important. The difference
14 between aorta and portal vein does not make any
15 difference because it reflects, is the indicator of the
16 blood level while he was still alive.
17 If he had made analyses from the (indistinct) blood
18 collection, that could have made a difference. But
19 aorta or cava vein or portal vein does not make any
20 difference for these analyses in my opinion.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
22 MR HILLIARD: In addition, the toxicologist had been asked
23 to look for signs of medication, toxic substances,
24 stupefying substances and found nothing; is that right?
25 A. Yes, it is right.
60
1 Q. Lastly, as far as you are concerned, so that
2 we understand, apart from obviously the burning, is this
3 right, that you found no sign of any injury inflicted to
4 the body in life?
5 A. That is right.
6 Q. But of necessity, your examination was obviously limited
7 by the circumstances of what you found?
8 A. It is what I said. I said that we did not find any
9 evidence of foul play before the burning, but I cannot
10 testify and be affirmative about that because burning
11 was very damaging and only remains were susceptible to
12 be examined.
13 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much, Professor.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
15 Mr Mansfield?
16 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
17 MR MANSFIELD: Good afternoon, Professor. My name is
18 Michael Mansfield.
19 A. Good afternoon.
20 Q. I represent Mohamed Al Fayed. I have a few questions.
21 I am conscious of the time. I will try to do it so that
22 you can get away. Do you understand?
23 A. Yes, so far. Yes.
24 Q. All right. Can I start at the end? It may be quicker.
25 That is this: because the corpse had been so seriously
61
1 damaged by fire, you cannot possibly exclude the use of
2 violence and the signs of which have been destroyed by
3 the fire. Do you agree?
4 A. I totally agree. It is why so many killers use fire to
5 damage the evidence.
6 Q. So, for example, if Mr Andanson had been incapacitated
7 in some way, for example made unconscious or a ligature
8 had been used, you might not be able to discern any of
9 that?
10 A. It depends. I think that it would not have been
11 possible to show sign of ligature. I think that if he
12 had been incapacitated using poison or any type of
13 medication, some of them would have been detected during
14 the toxicological analysis, and if he had been
15 incapacitated by a blow to the head, for instance, some
16 of them are destroyed by the heat, most of them
17 actually, especially when the blow has been thrown to
18 the convexity of the cranium, but I have an experience
19 of a blow to the head with pre-mortem fractures which
20 were identified at the basis of the skull because
21 the heat did not damage the base.
22 So in most circumstances that you mention, I think
23 that the evidence would have been destroyed by intensity
24 of this fire, but not all of them.
25 Q. Thank you very much. I do not take more time on that.
62
1 I am sorry to trouble about one more topic. It concerns
2 the toxicology and the risk -- I want to put it this
3 way. I will start at the end -- the risk of
4 contamination due to the presence of the body, what was
5 left of it, in a fire situation.
6 Now do you understand what I am putting to you?
7 A. Contamination by what?
8 Q. The carbohaemoglobin results that have been detected in
9 the laboratory may have had contribution made to that
10 result by the fact that the remains were left in the car
11 for at least a day, then removed and were present during
12 a fire.
13 A. So I read about that, because of course it is a question
14 that we ask quite often. But making reference to an
15 author -- maybe you know Professor Knight from Wales --
16 Q. Cardiff, yes.
17 A. He mention that in this case, for carbon monoxide
18 analysis, the quality of the sample is not of
19 importance. The importance is to have some samples and
20 to compare with a relative percentage of
21 carboxyhaemoglobin and oxyhaemoglobin, and once you can
22 make this analysis, I have never seen anything about
23 external contamination, so far. After talking to
24 the toxicologist and reading quite recently, I have
25 never heard of contamination of the blood sample by
63
1 the exposition to the outside, sir. I am not aware of
2 such a scientific evidence about what you are saying.
3 Q. Can I just ask you to look at the toxicological report
4 please?
5 A. I did.
6 Q. It is the sentence where the sample is described by
7 the toxicologist.
8 Can I just read -- because the jury do not have this
9 sentence:
10 "The sample studied consisted in 4.6 grams of
11 matter."
12 Is that how it reads in French?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. You will see it does not say "4.6 grams of blood". If
15 in fact it was clearly blood, it would have said that,
16 wouldn't it?
17 A. Yes, it was clotted blood, so it is solid. It is red,
18 it is within a vessel and it is solid because it is
19 burnt and clotted and dehydrated.
20 Q. That is what I wanted to ask you, whether it is within
21 a vessel. Whether it is the portal vein or the aorta,
22 if it is within a vessel, then the reading may be more
23 significant. Is that right?
24 A. Excuse me?
25 Q. If the sample has been taken from within a vessel,
64
1 whether a portal vein or an aorta, then that is of some
2 significance?
3 A. I do not understand the last part of your sentence.
4 What is he saying?
5 (Interpreted) No, no difference between a sample
6 collected from the aorta or portal vein.
7 Q. You do want to get away, do you? The question is: was
8 this sample -- this is the question I want to get to --
9 was this sample taken from a portal vein that was intact
10 when you saw it or was it taken from an aorta which was
11 intact when you saw it?
12 A. The aorta and portal vein were not intact, but they were
13 identifiable at the time of the autopsy.
14 Q. Right. They were not intact, either of them.
15 I leave aside that the toxicologist for some reason
16 thinks it is the aorta.
17 Can I just deal with the aorta for a moment? When
18 you looked at the body, you did find a fragment of
19 aorta, did you not? I am looking, in fact, at
20 the fourth page of your report.
21 A. Yes, sir. I mention at the top of page 3 that by the --
22 close to the liver, I have seen a fragment of a portal
23 vein and a fragment of aorta and a fragment of heart.
24 Q. Thank you. Now the sample that the toxicologist is
25 looking at, leaving aside whether it has been rightly
65
1 labelled, the sample, seal number 4, has it come from
2 one of those two fragments, either the portal fragment
3 or the aorta fragment?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So when the sample was taken from one of those two, they
6 were no longer anywhere near their original place in
7 the body, were they?
8 A. They were in their original place because they are close
9 to the liver, but they were damaged by the heat.
10 Q. Damaged by the heat.
11 A. But not that much, to the point that the red colour of
12 the blood was not identifiable and the veins and
13 the aorta were still identifiable, despite the damage.
14 Q. Now, the question is if someone was dead as opposed to
15 unconscious -- I have left that topic -- if someone is
16 dead when they are put in the car, there is then a fire
17 which damages the organs including the portal vein and
18 the aorta and is left in the car before it is removed
19 and then the examination does not take place for another
20 week and another week after that before the analysis,
21 those samples that have been removed may have obtained
22 their carbon monoxide content from the action of the
23 fire and remaining in the fire whilst dead. Is there
24 any possibility of that?
25 A. I do not know. As I told you, I have no scientific
66
1 information about that.
2 MR MANSFIELD: Well, then, sir, I think I am going to leave
3 it for someone else.
4 MR WEEKES: No, thank you, sir.
5 MR CROXFORD: No, thank you, sir.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard?
7 MR HILLIARD: No, thank you.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much indeed,
9 Professor Baccino. I am happy to say that we have
10 concluded all the questions we want to ask. You are
11 happy that you can get away, we are happy because
12 we have heard all your evidence. Thank you very much
13 for coming.
14 A. Thank you.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That, I think, concludes
16 the videolink with Paris.
17 MR HILLIARD: Yes. It does, sir.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: How can we usefully use
19 the remaining time this afternoon? Can we have the tape
20 of Kelly Fisher read to the jury?
21 MR BURNETT: Sir, the position is that the tape has not yet
22 been listened to by those who instruct my learned
23 friend, Mr Mansfield.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, it has been available for
25 a long time. If they have not chosen to listen to it,
67
1 that is one thing. But I am very anxious to use up
2 the time.
3 MR BURNETT: It has certainly been available for a week,
4 because it is a matter that was discussed a week ago.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And asked for.
6 MR BURNETT: I understand it has not been listened to so
7 I do not know what the position is.
8 MR MANSFIELD: As far as I am concerned, I have no objection
9 to it being read. There has been a problem about
10 listening to it. I wonder if it can be done in this
11 way. If it is read and then it is necessary at some
12 later stage for a part of it to be read -- and
13 I understand the qualifications and reservations. That
14 is why I am happy for it to be read at this time.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think we will get on with it
16 and read it, without prejudice to any arguments that
17 there may be from anybody afterwards, but I am not keen,
18 for reasons that I think are apparent, for it to be
19 played and then put into the public domain on the
20 internet.
21 MR MANSFIELD: Understandable and acceptable, if I may say.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. Well we can then proceed.
23 Do we have enough copies of it?
24 MR BURNETT: Sir, I hope so. Formally, we need to call
25 Mr Foley to prove it.
68
1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, you may
2 remember that Kelly Fisher gave evidence before
3 Christmas and she had a tape-recording of a telephone
4 discussion between her and Dodi which she was going to
5 go and see if she could find. Mr Foley went to America
6 over a Christmas holiday -- it was not too big
7 a hardship for him because his family lives there -- and
8 he was able to retrieve the tape.
9 MR BURNETT: Sir, might I call Mr Foley very briefly, just
10 to prove his involvement?
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We may need a break while they
12 take the screen away.
13 MR BURNETT: Let's do that. It will take probably --
14 the tape itself is about 20 minutes. It will take
15 a little longer to read it.
16 (2.25 pm)
17 (A short break)
18 (2.40 pm)
19 (Jury present)
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I call next Mr Foley.
21 MR THOMAS FOLEY (sworn)
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do sit down.
23 A. Thank you, sir.
24 Questions from MR BURNETT
25 MR BURNETT: You are Tom Foley?
69
1 A. I am, Thomas Foley.
2 Q. You are legal secretary to the inquests?
3 A. That is also true.
4 Q. Mr Foley, before Christmas we heard evidence from
5 Kelly Fisher who described having a tape-recording.
6 Were you in America over Christmas and the New Year?
7 A. I was fortunate enough to be so, yes.
8 Q. Did you, during your visit, find time to see
9 Kelly Fisher?
10 A. For Queen and country, yes.
11 Q. Did she produce a tape-recording to you and did you
12 listen to it with her?
13 A. I did indeed.
14 Q. Did she identify to you the voices of those who were on
15 the tape?
16 A. She did.
17 Q. Did you bring the tape that she gave you back to the
18 United Kingdom?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Have you caused it to be transcribed?
21 A. I have.
22 Q. Is the transcript, which you have in front of you and of
23 which we have copies, as far as you are aware, an
24 accurate transcript of the tape-recording?
25 A. It is indeed.
70
1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do we have copies for the jury?
2 MR BURNETT: We have, sir.
3 Was Miss Fisher able to identify for you the precise
4 date of the telephone call?
5 A. I recall she said it was about 12 days before the actual
6 crash.
7 Q. I think, when we come to hear its content, from context
8 it is possible to place it generally at a particular
9 period.
10 Sir, it is agreed that Mr Hilliard will read
11 the transcript. I think copies have now been given to
12 the jury who will be able to follow it.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
14 MR HILLIARD: I am not going to read who is speaking because
15 you all have it and you can follow.
16 [Tape transcript read]
17 [INQ0060611]
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Was Robert identified in
19 the evidence? My recollection is that he was not.
20 MR HILLIARD: Yes. He was. He had been a friend of hers
21 for some time and if we check, we will come up with
22 a surname, but I just don't remember it for the moment.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Fiona gets a mention but --
24 MR HILLIARD: I do not think we know about her, but we will
25 see about Robert.
71
1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Any questions of Mr Foley?
2 MR CROXFORD: I wish I could, sir, but ...
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much.
4 That is probably as far as we can go this afternoon,
5 is it?
6 MR HILLIARD: Yes.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is there any evidence from
8 Inspector Carpenter in the course of preparation at the
9 present time?
10 MR HILLIARD: There certainly is.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: He is not here, I know.
12 MR HILLIARD: There are a number of things.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I wonder if there are any
14 section 37 estimates that I ought to refer to?
15 MR BURNETT: Sir, Inspector Carpenter is formally due to
16 prove the bodyguards' timeline and film which was
17 referred to during the evidence of Mr Rees and
18 Mr Wingfield, but I do not believe that that has yet
19 been circulated. I say that, because I do not recollect
20 having seen it.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
22 MR BURNETT: Sir, there is a statement from Mr Easton
23 dealing with what has become known as the leopardskin
24 swimsuit which you did mention to me a day or two ago
25 might be considered for Rule 37 reading and that might
72
1 be the one that you have in mind.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Has that been circulated yet?
3 MR BURNETT: I believe so. No? Well, if it has not,
4 it will be shortly.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I intend to read it and if anyone
6 objects, they can do so in the usual way.
7 Members of the jury, it is half past nine in
8 the morning, from Paris and if my recollection serves me
9 right, that concludes the Paris link for the time being,
10 although we come back to it later.
11 (3.13 pm)
12 (The hearing was adjourned until
13 9.30 am on Thursday, 7th February 2008)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
1 INDEX
2
3 MME FRANCOISE DARD (sworn) ....................... 1
4
5 Questions from MR HOUGH ................... 1
6
7 Questions from MR CROXFORD ................ 16
8
9 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 22
10
11 Further questions from MR HOUGH ........... 26
12
13 MS JOSEPHINE DARD (affirmed) ..................... 27
14
15 Questions from MR HOUGH ................... 27
16
17 Questions from MR CROXFORD ................ 36
18
19 PROFESSOR ERIC BACCINO (affirmed) ............... 41
20
21 Questions from MR HILLIARD ................ 41
22
23 Questions from MR MANSFIELD ............... 61
24
25 MR THOMAS FOLEY (sworn) .......................... 69
74
1
2 Questions from MR BURNETT ................. 69
3
Français