Hearing transcripts

6 March 2008 - Afternoon session

17 (2.00 pm)
18 (Jury present)
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have Mr Green next, have we?
20 MR HILLIARD: Yes please.
21 PROFESSOR ROY JAMES GREEN (sworn)
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would you prefer sit or stand?
23 It is up to you.
24 A. I think I will stand, sir.
25 Questions from MR HILLIARD

72 
  
1 MR HILLIARD: Is your name Roy James Green?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Can you give us your occupation, please?
4 A. I am a forensic biologist.
5 Q. And your qualifications?
6 A. I hold a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in
7 biological sciences. I am registered by the Council of
8 Registration for Forensic Practitioners and I have been
9 a forensic scientist for 29 years.
10 Q. Mr Green, along with Professor Jamieson, and I think
11 there is a very, very large measure of agreement between
12 the two of you, isn't there, but along with him, have
13 you looked at issues of DNA evidence as far as they
14 relate to samples that were taken from Mr Henri Paul?
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 Q. As you know, there is an issue as to whether the samples
17 that were analysed came from him or not. You are aware
18 that that is an issue in these proceedings?
19 A. Yes, I believe that that is an issue.
20 Q. Is this right, that some work had been done in France as
21 far as DNA analysis was concerned?
22 A. Yes, that is right.
23 Q. You were asked, is this right, by the Metropolitan
24 Police as part of their Operation Paget inquiry, to do
25 some DNA analysis for them?

73 
 
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I think it is agreed -- if it is not, I will be
3 corrected -- but are you aware that a sample of blood
4 that Dr Pepin had in his laboratory still, one of the
5 ones labelled "31st August 1997" and "Cardiac blood",
6 that that was divided into three subsamples and are you
7 aware that DNA work has been done on those subsamples?
8 A. Yes, that is correct. If I may refer to my notes, sir?
9 Q. Yes, by all means. I think this much, and indeed most
10 of it, is agreed. But if you need to, by all means.
11 Again, we don't need to go into questions of match
12 probabilities and statistics and so on because it is
13 agreed, as I understand it, that the results from those
14 tests, the DNA profiles match what you would expect from
15 Henri Paul and, indeed, that those subsamples were his
16 blood; all right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In addition, are you aware that a sample of liver said
19 to have been taken from Henri Paul, again on
20 31st August 1997, was analysed and again the DNA profile
21 matched his?
22 A. The samples we got --
23 Q. No, this is one done in France. If you are not aware of
24 it, don't worry, because I know that Professor Jamieson
25 is aware of that. If you are not, about the liver

74

1 sample, then don't agree just because I say it. All
2 right.
3 So, blood, liver, and then are you aware that those
4 tests were done in 2005/2006?
5 A. Well, I believe you will be asking Professor Jamieson
6 about those.
7 Q. If you don't know the dates, don't worry.
8 Did you, in 2006, at LGC Forensics -- is that
9 the company you work for?
10 A. Yes, that is right.
11 Q. Did you then look at a sample of blood that was said to
12 have come from Henri Paul and been taken by Dr Campana
13 on 4th September? Is that what was obtained for you to
14 look at?
15 A. Yes that is right. A sample labelled DGT1.
16 Q. Did it have some handwriting on the label?
17 A. Yes, it did, sir. It was a mixture of printed writing
18 and handwriting.
19 Q. We have heard of femoral blood that was taken on that
20 occasion and heard about labelling "Femoral gauche" and
21 "Femoral droite". So, left and right. What did this
22 have on it?
23 A. Well, in my writing, not knowing that, I thought it said
24 "FM" underlined, but I have a photocopy of the label and
25 I can see how it could be "FD".

75

1 Q. Did you or others on your behalf at your laboratory
2 conduct DNA analysis on that blood sample?
3 A. Yes, that is right.
4 Q. Again, there is no dispute about this, the results
5 indicated that that was Henri Paul's blood?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is this right: we have one container of blood in France
8 that is divided into three samples, they are all
9 analysed in France by different people but all come to
10 the conclusion effectively for these purposes that it is
11 Henri Paul's blood; we have the piece of liver; and then
12 we have the sample of blood that your laboratory
13 analyses in 2006. But is this right: as you understand
14 it, there is no link between the samples tested for DNA
15 and the samples used to determine the precise level of
16 alcohol in Henri Paul's blood? As you understand it,
17 they are not the same samples.
18 A. Yes, that is my understanding. The sample we tested was
19 not tested for alcohols and, indeed, that was not
20 necessarily its purpose.
21 Q. Did you understand that that was also the case with
22 the French blood, or if you don't know --
23 A. I do not know the details on that.
24 Q. Lastly this: is it -- I do not know -- usual or unusual
25 for samples to be taken from the same person but for

76

1 the samples to be for different purposes?
2 A. In Britain, it is entirely usual for several samples to
3 be taken. One or more assemblies may be selected for
4 DNA profiling, other samples will be taken with
5 the desire to carry out alcohol testing on them and
6 others will be taken for other toxicological tests; and
7 there are different chemicals put into these blood
8 samples according to how they need to be stored. So it
9 might be that if you are looking for a chemical in
10 a toxicological manner, you would not want to use one of
11 the other samples that may the chemical you are looking
12 for. So it is usual to take several samples and not
13 test all of them.
14 Q. But if in a particular case there is an issue about
15 whether a sample that is analysed comes from
16 a particular person, if that is an issue in a case,
17 it is obviously desirable, isn't it, if you can, to do
18 both sets of test on the same sample? So, both
19 the analysis to get what the result is and then the DNA
20 test if there is an issue about who the blood has come
21 from. It is obviously desirable, isn't it?
22 A. That would be ideal. It is not normally how it works.
23 Normally the continuity of those items is checked and
24 followed through, and therefore you don't have to test
25 every sample in every test. But the tests we have are

77

1 so sensitive that it is possible to detect a person's
2 SDR profile from any traces remaining from another
3 sample.
4 Q. I will come on to that.
5 As you say, you hope in a case there will not be an
6 issue as to who the sample's come from, because it will
7 have been labelled, packaged and followed and so on, so
8 there will be no doubt about it.
9 But as you appreciate -- and I will not go through
10 it with you because we have done it with four other
11 witnesses, so we cannot do it all over again -- you know
12 there are issues about labelling and the chain of
13 custody, as it has been called?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The last point is this, and you have covered it already:
16 if I understand what you are saying, it is this: if you
17 had the old container, for example, in which blood that
18 was analysed for a precise alcohol level had been -- if
19 you had that container, even if there were very small
20 amounts of blood left in, it might still be possible to
21 do a DNA test?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. But is this right, as far as you are aware, and you can
24 only speak of your knowledge, as far as you are aware,
25 certainly it has not been possible to provide you with

78

1 any old containers or anything of that sort?
2 A. Yes, my understanding is that the original containers no
3 longer exist and, therefore, those samples don't exist
4 to be analysed.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: My inquiries to find out if there
6 are have drawn a blank thus far. But it does occur to
7 me that there are other proceedings in France, and
8 I don't know if Mr Mansfield or Mr Keen, whose clients
9 I think are involved in those proceedings, can confirm
10 that there is nothing in the way of leftover samples
11 that they can get access to?
12 MR KEEN: I am not aware of any other proceedings that
13 the Pauls are involved in, sir.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield, it may be your
15 client who is involved only.
16 MR MANSFIELD: Can I have a moment to clarify? At the
17 moment, we are unaware of any.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is a matter of trying to tie
19 up the loose ends. If there were anything, it would be
20 very helpful to have it and to have it analysed.
21 MR MANSFIELD: We agree.
22 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much, Mr Green. Thank you.
23 MR MANSFIELD: I have no questions.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?
25 MR KEEN: Good afternoon, Mr Green.

79

1 Questions from MR KEEN
2 MR KEEN: My name is Richard Keen. I appear as counsel on
3 behalf of the parents of the late Henri Paul.
4 I wonder if I could ask you a few questions about
5 process and procedures.
6 You talked about chain of custody and we have
7 already heard extensive evidence that that is as much
8 a matter of common sense as of science, and it is
9 designed to ensure that you can identify where
10 particular samples have come from in order that you can
11 be reliant upon the results of any subsequent
12 toxicological analysis; would you agree with that?
13 A. Yes, that is right.
14 Q. Are you familiar with Professor Forrest, who has already
15 given evidence in this inquest?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. I do not know if you have had occasion to discuss
18 matters with Professor Forrest at all?
19 A. We did have a conversation, yes.
20 Q. Professor Forrest himself I think pointed out to us that
21 it is a truism that the interpretation of toxicological
22 analysis depends on the provenance and the quality of
23 the samples submitted for analysis.
24 Would you agree with that statement?
25 A. I certainly would not disagree with that on

80

1 toxicological matters, because I am not a toxicologist.
2 Q. Staying with the chain of custody just a little longer,
3 it is usual, is it not, to have a record of continuity?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Q. If we can just look at some standard procedures that you
6 yourself have used for Operation Paget, if we could have
7 on the screen [INQ0020328]? I think you will see,
8 Mr Green, that this is a forensic examination record for
9 Operation Paget. Do you recognise it?
10 A. Yes, that is part of my disclosure.
11 Q. If we look to the foot of the page, I think we see your
12 name against the entry "Forensic Scientist".
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the date, 21st November 2006.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In this instance, I think we were concerned with
17 the analysis of blood samples attributed to Diana,
18 Princess of Wales, those blood samples having been taken
19 from the Mercedes car in which she was travelling at the
20 time of the crash. Is that right?
21 A. No. I don't believe that is related to that statement.
22 Q. You are not sure that is what this matter relates to?
23 A. Well, that statement relates to blood samples from
24 Henri Paul and some results generated by the French
25 scientists following requests from me to compare

81

1 the two.
2 Q. So do you say that the examination record here is
3 concerned with samples from Henri Paul?
4 A. Well, the sample we were given -- I was given a sample
5 of blood, DGT1, and said can I comment on whether
6 the person that blood came from was related in any way
7 to three names on a piece of paper with the DNA results.
8 I wasn't told necessarily who was who or who was related
9 to who, but I was asked to comment on whether
10 the profiling results obtained from that blood could in
11 any way be related to the names on that piece of paper.
12 Q. Were you at any time asked to consider blood sample
13 analysis and DNA analysis by reference to samples that
14 might have been attributable to Diana,
15 Princess of Wales?
16 A. Yes, I was, but not on that statement.
17 Q. If you look at the second page of this statement,
18 [INQ0020329], I think you will see that there is
19 a reference under the heading "Description" to various
20 matters which are either ticked or crossed off in
21 respect of this particular report. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. On this page, what we appear to have is a tick against
24 something that is headed, "Record of continuity of
25 items".

82

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is that intended to refer to continuity only in your
3 hands, Mr Green, or is that intended to refer to
4 continuity prior to the material coming into your hands,
5 on the basis of evidence submitted to you?
6 A. That is referring to the continuity of the items whilst
7 in possession of LGC Forensics.
8 Q. And that is your company.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Just to be clear about this then, insofar as we have any
11 record of continuity for blood samples that were
12 the subject of DNA analysis by you, that record of
13 continuity that you can give only extends back as far as
14 the arrival of those samples with your laboratory in
15 2006.
16 A. Yes. It is only proper that you ask people who supplied
17 those samples where they got them from and follow
18 the chain. I can only be responsible for the continuity
19 of those items while they are in the possession of
20 LGC Forensics.
21 Q. That is what I want to be clear about. Do you recall
22 writing a letter dated 2nd March 2008 to
23 Professor Jamieson?
24 I am not sure if there is an INQ number for this so
25 perhaps I can quote it. I can pass you a copy if you

83

1 don't have one. I think in that letter at the end --
2 well, in fact before we get to the end, on the first
3 page you comment on the proposition that there is no
4 link between those samples which were tested for DNA and
5 the samples tested for toxicology, and I think you have
6 already addressed that point with my learned friend
7 Mr Hilliard.
8 If you go to the second page at the end, you say:
9 "I am unable to comment upon the provenance of the
10 toxicology samples as I was tasked with discussing
11 the issues that you raised with regard to the DNA
12 testing."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Just to understand that statement, Mr Green, does that
15 reaffirm that as far as you are concerned, you can talk
16 about the continuity of samples while in your hands with
17 your laboratory, but are not in a position to speak to
18 the provenance of these samples before they arrived in
19 your hands at your laboratory?
20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. I think you know that very real questions have arisen as
22 to whether the blood samples and the liver samples which
23 were submitted for DNA analysis were in fact identical
24 in terms of provenance to the blood samples, for
25 example, which were submitted for alcohol/blood

84

1 analysis.
2 A. I believe that is a question, yes.
3 Q. And that issue would first of all turn upon the chain of
4 continuity from the time of the post mortem performed on
5 31st August 1997 up to the point of DNA analysis.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Are you aware of the instructions that were originally
8 given by the French authorities for the purposes of
9 the post mortem in August of 1997 on the body at IML in
10 Paris on that date?
11 A. No, I am not.
12 Q. Have you ever been made aware of an instruction that
13 Professor Lecomte was in fact to have taken two
14 identical batches of samples from the autopsy on that
15 date?
16 A. It is not my recollection. As I say, I have read
17 a report, the Bellancourt dossier, but I can't remember
18 all the details of that now. But I was chiefly
19 concerned with the testing for DNA DGT1, and comparing
20 that with the samples provided, with the results of
21 samples that were generated in France, for this part of
22 the investigation.
23 Q. So, do I understand that you would not have been
24 immediately concerned with the question of why such
25 identical batches of samples were not available?

85

1 A. No. I have sort of expressed a view that if such
2 samples need to be tested I would be more than happy to
3 try that, and that such tests could be carried out on
4 very small amounts of DNA indeed.
5 Q. Were you made aware of material inconsistencies in
6 the laboratory records of Professor Lecomte about
7 the taking of samples on 31st August 1997?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Can I move on then to the Bellancourt report, which
10 I understand was prepared in 2005.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You have seen the file of that, you tell us.
13 A. Yes. I saw a pdf, an electronic version of it. It was
14 a very large document, 127 pages as I recall, so I was
15 commenting on what I had seen in relation to what
16 Professor Jamieson had written.
17 Q. Again, sir, I apologise, but this has never been copied
18 on to the INQ numbers so it is not possible to bring it
19 up on to the screen, but perhaps, Mr Green, I can remind
20 you of certain matters.
21 In 2005, when the French were preparing
22 the Bellancourt report and went to the laboratory of
23 Dr Pepin, they received from Dr Pepin an explanation
24 that he still had in his possession a box containing
25 samples, including blood samples, or containers that had

86
1 contained blood samples, which had been employed for
2 the purpose of blood alcohol analysis.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Indeed, we have detailed photographs of these. Now,
5 that would have been some seven and a half years after
6 the date of the crash.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At this time, it was being proposed that in order to try
9 to resolve certain issues with regard to the provenance
10 of samples of blood used for blood alcohol analysis,
11 some form of DNA analysis would be employed.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And as you have already told us, it would have been
14 possible to perform DNA analysis on the blood or
15 the containers which had contained the blood used for
16 blood alcohol analysis by Dr Pepin.
17 A. Yes, attempts could be made to carry out those tests.
18 There is no saying that you would have got a result, but
19 attempts could be made or should be made and --
20 Q. Could or should, Mr Green. I do not ask you to choose
21 between the two. The point is the material was
22 available, the issue had arisen, you couldn't guarantee
23 the outcome of the test but it could or should have been
24 carried out.
25 A. Yes. If there is a question as to the provenance of

87
1 that sample, DNA testing would have sorted it out.
2 Q. Do you know why, even after the Bellancourt Inquiry,
3 such tests were never carried out?
4 A. I believe that the samples do not exist any more.
5 Q. That was my next question, Mr Green. Do you know why,
6 given that they were available at the time of the
7 Bellancourt investigation, they were subsequently
8 destroyed or disappeared?
9 A. I don't know why that particular sample disappeared.
10 I offered as a suggestion that there may be health and
11 safety issues and they have destroyed items in that
12 manner, knowing that there were samples that have
13 adequate amounts for DNA testing, but that is not done
14 from a position of knowledge and it is just
15 a suggestion.
16 Q. Your suggestion is that they might have kept this
17 material for seven and a half years and once an issue
18 arose about the provenance of these samples and once an
19 issue arose about the issue of DNA testing, then, after
20 seven and a half years, instead of releasing
21 the material for DNA testing, they would destroy it on
22 health and safety grounds?
23 A. It does sound unlikely, the way you put it.
24 Q. It does, Mr Green. It does indeed.
25 Were you also asked to carry out a DNA analysis in

88
1 respect of a sample of liver?
2 A. No, I was not.
3 Q. You were not, at any time?
4 A. No.
5 MR KEEN: Thank you, Mr Green.
6 No further questions, sir.
7 MR CROXFORD: No thank you, sir.
8 Questions from MR MACLEOD
9 MR MACLEOD: Mr Green, my name is Duncan Macleod and I ask
10 questions on behalf of the Commissioner of Police for
11 the Metropolis.
12 Just as an initial matter of clarification, I think
13 you as an expert DNA profiler were only instructed in
14 this case to advise in relation to DNA matters only; is
15 that right?
16 A. Yes, my remit was quite tight. The information I was
17 given was fairly restricted because of the type of case
18 that we were dealing with.
19 Q. You were never instructed to look at chain of custody
20 issues or anything of that sort?
21 A. No, I believe that was someone else's task.
22 Q. Yes, and the jury have heard extensive evidence about
23 that.
24 To put your evidence into context, I think you knew
25 and were asked to review the DNA test reports and

89
1 results obtained by French experts on blood samples
2 which were obtained from Dr Pepin as samples of blood
3 which were taken from a corpse by Professor Lecomte on
4 31st August 1997, is that right?
5 A. Well, my -- the blood sample I received has a date on it
6 of 4th September, 1997.
7 Q. Yes. That is the one that was sent to your laboratory
8 for DNA testing.
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. I am referring at the moment to the French expert
11 reports of Professor Doutrempuich and
12 Professor Mazancourt.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You had an opportunity to review those reports?
15 A. I was presented with the results on a piece of paper.
16 Q. Were you able to look at the methodology adopted by
17 those French experts?
18 A. Well, looking at the -- no, not really. Looking at
19 the results, I could see that they had used a system
20 called Identifiler.
21 Q. To cut a long story short, if you are not aware of the
22 detail, to put the results into context, was it this:
23 the blood samples which were obtained by
24 Professor Lecomte indicated that Henri Paul had a high
25 level of alcohol in his blood at the time he died. That

90
1 was challenged and as a result, the French authorities
2 sought DNA analysis of blood that was still available
3 from the same batch of samples that were taken from
4 Henri Paul by Professor Lecomte. Do you understand
5 that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And those DNA samples indicated -- this is the DNA
8 samples that were profiled -- that the corpse from which
9 that blood had been obtained showed a 99.99 per cent
10 recurring probability that they were taken from the son
11 of Giselle Paul, Mrs Paul.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So the relevance of those French DNA results, to put it
14 in context, was to link the known blood of Henri Paul to
15 the batch of samples taken by Professor Lecomte.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Independently of that analysis, a separate autopsy was
18 carried out on Henri Paul, I think you know, on
19 4th September 1997, by a different doctor, under
20 the supervision of Judge Stephan. I think that is one
21 of the samples that was submitted to LGC Forensic
22 Science Laboratory, which is your laboratory?
23 A. Yes, we received the sample DGT1.
24 Q. To put this in context, because the autopsy on
25 31st August was questioned because of preanalytical

91
1 issues arising, a second autopsy was carried out by
2 a different doctor, Dr Campana. Blood was obtained and
3 analysed which showed that Henri Paul had a similarly
4 high level of blood (sic) from the blood that was taken
5 from the same corpse, but this time from the femoral
6 vein; you were aware of that?
7 A. Well, I am not aware of the details. I know I received
8 a blood sample which we carried out DNA profiling on.
9 Q. I am told I said a high level of blood, but I meant
10 a high level of alcohol in the blood.
11 A. I cannot talk to that, but I will accept that if you say
12 that is the case.
13 Q. That was blood sampled from the femoral gauche vein,
14 that is the left femoral vein. You were supplied with
15 the corresponding sample that was taken at the same
16 autopsy from the femoral droite, right femoral vein; is
17 that right?
18 MR KEEN: I wonder if my learned friend would explain what
19 he means by "corresponding".
20 MR MACLEOD: Well, we know two samples were taken; one
21 femoral gauche, one femoral droite. When I say
22 corresponding, the femoral gauche was submitted for
23 toxicological analysis; the corresponding sample,
24 femoral droite, was retained at Dr Pepin's laboratory
25 and sent to your laboratory for DNA analysis. I hope

92
1 that is clear.
2 That was the sample that you obtained, is that
3 right?
4 A. That was the sample and it was labelled 972147.
5 Q. Again, to cut a long story short, the results of the DNA
6 testing in your laboratory show that that blood sample
7 was taken from a corpse which showed a 99.999 per cent
8 probability that it was the son of Mrs Paul.
9 A. Well, our tests, we carried out tests to look at that,
10 and our tests showed -- looked at the probability of
11 obtaining the results we did if this was blood from
12 the son of Giselle Paul compared to whether it was
13 the son of someone who was unrelated to her, and
14 the results showed that -- the results were
15 approximately 22,000 times more likely if the former was
16 true.
17 Q. So the relevance of that DNA test again was to link
18 the DNA result with the blood obtained from
19 the Dr Campana autopsy?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I think you are agreed with Professor Jamieson that in
22 this case there is no evidence of DNA contamination of
23 the samples?
24 A. Yes, that is right. Our tests showed the presence of
25 only one person's DNA in there.

93
1 Q. So, if there is a suggestion that there had been
2 a mixture of bloods from two persons so that the sample
3 contained mixed blood from Henri Paul and a stranger, in
4 other words, that the sample had been spiked, that can
5 safely be discounted?
6 A. It is possible to get a very small amount of DNA from
7 someone else in a sample without it registering, but you
8 would have to have so much more blood from the main
9 person that showed the profile, so effectively, yes,
10 that can be discounted.
11 Q. Whereas in this case a full, balanced, STR profile was
12 obtained?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 MR MACLEOD: Thank you very much.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Green, so that I can be
16 absolutely clear that I have understood this:
17 the 31st August sample which was divided into tree
18 subsamples, that was examined for DNA by the French.
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And you simply reviewed their
21 paperwork; is that right?
22 A. Yes, I got an item which was recorded as IKCR26 from --
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You looked at the paperwork and
24 there was nothing obviously wrong with what they had
25 done, is that correct?

94
1 A. Yes. There was a profile from a female, Giselle Paul,
2 there was a profile from Jean Henri Paul and a profile
3 from Henri Paul.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: To be quite clear about this, you
5 didn't conduct any scientific tests on that series of
6 three subsamples?
7 A. Not at that stage, no.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Then, the 4th September sample,
9 you did carry out your own examination upon that part of
10 it which was described as femoral droite.
11 A. Yes, sir. Identifiler tests, which is a form of DNA
12 profiling, were carried out on that blood sample, DGT1,
13 and effectively we got the same results as the French
14 did.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: What about the liver? Do you
16 know what happened to the liver sample from the DNA
17 point of view?
18 A. I don't know, sir. We didn't receive it.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you know if it was DNA'd by
20 anybody?
21 A. I don't know, sir.
22 MR HILLIARD: Professor Jamieson knows the answer to that.
23 So we will deal with that.
24 Sorry, is that it?
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is it.

95
1 Further questions from MR HILLIARD
2 MR HILLIARD: Could you help, just so we are clear. What
3 you described as DGT1, which was the sample said to have
4 come from Henri Paul on 4th September 1997 and taken by
5 Dr Campana, as you know, the results matched Henri Paul
6 and it is accepted that it was his blood, but have you
7 got -- you did say earlier, and I should have got it
8 then, did you say you have a picture of the sample
9 bottle?
10 A. Yes, I do sir.
11 Q. We have heard about the Institut Medico-Legal.
12 IML972147, nom, name, Paul Henry, spelt H-E-N-R-Y.
13 A. Yes, it is spelt wrong.
14 Q. Date: 04/09/1997. Then there is the handwriting and
15 I think there is a suggestion that it could be FD, but
16 people can look at that for themselves.
17 A. Yes, I described this in my statement. My CSE French
18 let me down, I am afraid. I thought it was a female or
19 male thing, with the FM and the M underlined, but --
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is a pretty tired looking D,
21 isn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR HILLIARD: And then printed bit, "Sang cardiaque", is
24 that right?
25 A. Yes.

96
1 Q. And then "Medecin", the name of the doctor, then the
2 name of the person, Campana.
3 A. Yes. There are some other views about the other parts
4 of that.
5 Q. That looks like F-L-U-O-Z-E.
6 Is there another view of it, or is that it?
7 A. I think there are about four pictures there.
8 MR HILLIARD: I am sure two is enough. We have seen what
9 we need to see.
10 Thank you very much indeed, thank you.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you, Mr Green.
12 A. Thank you, sir..
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So now we want
14 Professor Jamieson.
15 MR HILLIARD: Very briefly, please.
16 PROFESSOR ALLAN JAMIESON (sworn)
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would you prefer to sit or stand?
18 A. I think I will sit, thank you, sir.
19 Questions from MR HILLIARD
20 MR HILLIARD: Is it Professor Allan Jamieson.
21 A. It is.
22 Q. Can you help us with your occupation, what you do and so
23 on?
24 A. I am a director and scientist at the Forensic Institute
25 in Glasgow. My academic qualifications, I have a double

97
1 first class honours in biology and genetics, and a PhD
2 from the forensic science unit at Strathclyde
3 University, I am a Fellow of the Institute of Biology --
4 Q. That is plenty.
5 A. More?
6 Q. You were instructed, Professor, I think, on behalf of
7 the parents of Henri Paul, the Ritz Hotel and
8 Mohamed Al Fayed to look at the sort of DNA issues that
9 we have been looking at after lunch in court, is that
10 right?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. In particular, did you look at the results of DNA
13 analysis carried out on samples said to have come from
14 Henri Paul?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So you checked that work?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And you considered questions about whether, if
19 particular material was available, it might yet be
20 possible to do more work?
21 A. Correct. That was part of the examination of the
22 continuity. My work revolved around two issues: one was
23 the DNA results and secondly, because of my involvement
24 in other areas of forensic science, looking at this
25 issue of continuity and how the DNA could be related

98
1 ultimately to the toxicology.
2 Q. Is this right, that now, and there has been
3 correspondence between the two of you, as there properly
4 should be, but I don't think, is this right, there is
5 any real disagreement between yourself and Mr Green at
6 this stage?
7 A. We are wholly agreed that the DNA results show what they
8 have been purported to show.
9 Q. The extra one I think that I know you can help with is
10 the liver sample. Do you remember the division of blood
11 on the 31st August into three samples, looked at by
12 three different experts, all effectively confirming that
13 it was Henri Paul's blood? But there is also a sample
14 of liver, I know you know, taken on 31st August 1997 and
15 the DNA results on that, for all practical purposes,
16 Henri Paul's liver, is that right?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Thank you for helping us with that.
19 Then you did not do the testing but you are aware of
20 the results of the testing that Mr Green's laboratory
21 did on the 4th September sample, the one that we have
22 just been looking at on the screen?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Again, the results of that testing, no dispute,
25 effectively Henri Paul's blood?

99
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Is this right, Professor: none of the blood that I have
3 just summarised with you, none of that blood was
4 the same blood as had been analysed to give a precise
5 measurement of alcohol in the blood?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. You heard Mr Green deal with this, but is it your view
8 that if there is an issue about analysis and where blood
9 has come from, that, on the face of it, the obvious
10 thing to do is to DNA test part of the same blood that
11 you analysed?
12 A. Yes. I think that while it is common to take samples
13 for different purposes, as was correctly identified by
14 Mr Green, if the issue is identification then it does
15 seem sensible to do it on the same sample.
16 Q. Yes. He agrees with you, but is it still your view that
17 contamination, as far as the DNA is concerned, is not an
18 issue that we need to trouble with?
19 A. The DNA to some extent, in terms of answering
20 the question on the toxicology, is irrelevant because it
21 has not been connected.
22 Q. It is only, is this right, a question of what inferences
23 you can draw that some samples said to have come from
24 him when you do the DNA analysis, that appears to be
25 confirmed, it is a question of whether or not you can

100
1 use, as it were, what information you gain from that
2 against other samples that are labelled in the same way
3 and so on. But directly, as you say, there is no link,
4 is there?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. I think you agree, is this also right, that
7 notwithstanding the passage of time, if you could find
8 the pots or sample jars where blood had been that was
9 been analysed for precise blood alcohol labels, if you
10 could find them even now and there were any bits left,
11 it would still be possible to try to test those?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR HILLIARD: All right, Professor, thank you very much
14 indeed.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
16 MR MANSFIELD: No questions.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?
18 MR KEEN: Professor, just a few questions.
19 Questions from MR KEEN
20 MR KEEN: If I could come back for a moment to your CV,
21 amongst other appointments do I ask you are visiting
22 Professor of Forensic Biology at Napier University?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You are also engaged as an Honorary Fellow in Pathology
25 at Edinburgh University?

101
1 A. Up until recently. I was not sacked; it just expired.
2 Q. I was not seeking to infer otherwise, Professor. In
3 fact I am not going to go through three pages of
4 appointments with you. That is just a selection. But
5 you were formerly chairman of the Institute of Biology
6 as well.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You have given evidence in many cases, as I understand
9 it, involving DNA analysis and related issues of
10 toxicology?
11 A. Yes, and continuity.
12 Q. You mention continuity. Most recently did you give
13 evidence in the trial of a Mr Hoey, who was accused in
14 connection with what is referred to as the Omagh
15 bombing?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Did you give evidence over a period of about a week in
18 that case?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Did that raise a series of issues with regard to DNA
21 analysis and, more particularly, chain of custody, or
22 connection as you call it, between toxicology and DNA
23 amongst other things?
24 A. To put that in context, we spent a year looking at
25 the continuity of the items ostensibly involved. There

102
1 were in fact over ten incidents involved in what was
2 called the Omagh bomb. In fact, the DNA evidence and
3 much of the continuity related not to the Omagh incident
4 but to others.
5 Nevertheless, we reviewed some 8,000 documents
6 related to continuity, statements and suchlike as an
7 example. We have considerable experience of
8 investigating the continuity of items within certainly
9 the criminal environment.
10 Q. Do I understand that the issue here is not whether
11 the samples submitted to Mr Green were or were not
12 samples from the late Henri Paul, but whether those
13 samples are linked by chain of custody or connected to
14 samples which were the subject of blood alcohol
15 analysis?
16 A. That is true, and that is where we started with the DNA.
17 My job was then to try to create the link. We have
18 identified, for example, the residual -- and one of the
19 things that I did come across was the police report
20 referring to the residual material in vials, which there
21 are still many questions around.
22 Q. This is the Bellancourt report, I believe.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can I come on to that in a moment, Professor?
25 A. That's perfect.

103
1 Q. You see, Mr Macleod has repeatedly alluded to the fact
2 that the probability, indeed the certainty of Mr Green's
3 analysis tells us that it is a 99.9 recurring percentage
4 probability that what Mr Green analysed came from
5 the late Henri Paul. As I understand it you would not
6 disagree with that?
7 A. Not at all.
8 Q. But what does that tell us about the provenance of
9 the samples that were tested for blood alcohol?
10 A. It is what we would call probative. It is helpful in
11 some respects but, as I heard in court when I attended
12 before, if one looks at the totality of the evidence,
13 then while evidence can be consistent with a particular
14 story, if there are serious problems with pieces of
15 the evidence inconsistent with the story, then questions
16 must arise about the story.
17 If I could indulge on the "consistent with" and
18 the care that has to be taken with that. A perpetrator
19 may be described as having black hair and the accused
20 may have black hair, so the evidence is consistent with
21 that. It doesn't mean that you can attach any weight to
22 that particular evidence. So consistency alone is
23 insufficient. And in this case there are major
24 inconsistences in the links and that is what raised my
25 concern.

104
1 Q. We have been through many of these already,
2 Professor Jamieson, as you may know, and I do not intend
3 to take you or the jury back through them. But there
4 are issues such as exactly where Professor Lecomte took
5 blood samples from or what their provenance was on
6 31st August, for example.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I think you heard Professor Forrest himself acknowledge
9 that he would not approve of the announcement that was
10 made, apparently in reliance upon analysis of those
11 samples, to the effect that Henri Paul had been under
12 the influence of alcohol.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In addition, we have heard reference to other samples
15 apart from blood that Professor Lecomte purported to
16 take. I wonder if we can just look for a moment at some
17 of these records as well.
18 If we could up first of all [INQ0001652].
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen, we have been down all
20 this road and I do not think there is any dispute
21 about it.
22 MR KEEN: Then I am quite happy to summarise it with
23 Professor Jamieson in a few short points without putting
24 the document up, sir.
25 Are you aware, Professor, that Professor Lecomte was

105
1 of course instructed to take two identical batches of
2 samples?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Have you ever encountered an explanation as to why that
5 was not done?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Are you also aware that with regard to samples such as
8 liver --
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: This is absolutely common ground,
10 Mr Keen. We don't need to repeat it all. I am sure
11 the jury have it all on board.
12 MR KEEN: I am obliged, sir, and if it is the case that
13 Mr Macleod is not going to touch upon the question of
14 liver samples in his cross-examination, I will not go
15 there either. But he follows me.
16 MR MACLEOD: I will certainly only touch on it very briefly.
17 MR KEEN: Mr Macleod's sense of brevity may be different to
18 mine and yours, sir. I only want to make one short
19 point, if I may.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
21 Q. Although in one part of her report Professor Lecomte
22 claims to have taken five intestinal samples in two
23 batches, that's five and five, are you aware that her
24 laboratory records only disclose the taking of four
25 samples from organs?

106
1 A. Sorry, you said intestinal; I thought it was body
2 samples.
3 Q. We shall call it body samples.
4 A. Yes, I am.
5 Q. Five and five. But the laboratory records only refer to
6 four; are you aware of that as well?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, Mr Green very fairly said that in the context of
9 the work he did, he was unable to comment on
10 the provenance of the toxicology samples that were
11 submitted to him.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. More particularly, are we not concerned with
14 the provenance of the toxicology samples that were
15 the subject of blood alcohol analysis?
16 A. That seemed to be the point at issue.
17 Q. You mentioned the Bellancourt report. Again, I'll take
18 this speedily because it doesn't seem to be disputed.
19 In 2005, the French police went to Dr Pepin in his
20 laboratory and he disclosed to the French police that in
21 fact he still had the blood and the containers
22 containing blood which had been the subject of blood
23 alcohol analysis; you are aware of that?
24 A. Correct, yes.
25 Q. What we have been told since is that at that time he was

107
1 told that there was a desire to carry out DNA tests
2 because of issues that had arisen about the provenance
3 of the blood alcohol reported in respect of Henri Paul.
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. And for reasons that have never been disclosed, that DNA
6 analysis which could have been carried out on the
7 material that Dr Pepin had was not carried out on that
8 material; is that correct?
9 A. That is my understanding. In fact, the single box
10 containing those samples was the single box that wasn't
11 opened by the policeman.
12 Q. Since then, we are advised that that single box has been
13 destroyed.
14 A. I was not aware of that.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am not sure we know it has been
16 destroyed; it has disappeared.
17 MR KEEN: It has disappeared.
18 Let's just say it has gone, Professor. On the
19 assumption that it has gone, you heard Mr Green advance
20 the suggestion that perhaps, having retained it for 7
21 and a half years, it was destroyed for health and safety
22 reasons after the disclosure that DNA analysis was
23 required.
24 Are you able to place any more credence on that
25 suggestion than Mr Green himself was?

108
1 A. I think, in fairness to Mr Green, it is an explanation
2 but it is not a credible explanation.
3 MR KEEN: Thank you, Professor.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Macleod?
5 Questions from MR MACLEOD
6 MR MACLEOD: I would like to clarify a few matters so that
7 the jury can follow the significance of the DNA evidence
8 and how it relates to the question of whether or not
9 the DNA assists in linking the toxicological results to
10 the blood of Henri Paul. Do you understand?
11 A. Yes, indeed.
12 Q. First of all, it is right, isn't it, dealing first with
13 the French DNA investigations, that you have had an
14 opportunity of investigating the paperwork arising from
15 that, and the manner in which the samples were seized
16 and why they were seized?
17 A. From Dr Pepin's lab on, yes.
18 Q. The reason why, in 2005, French investigators were
19 seeking to carry out DNA tests is because legal
20 proceedings had been commenced in France by Mr Al Fayed
21 against Dr Pepin and Professor Lecomte.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. It is right, isn't it, that the DNA tests were carried
24 out in order to determine whether the batch of samples,
25 or the blood from the batch of samples, matched the DNA

109
1 of Mrs Paul?
2 A. You say "the "batch, and there has been constant
3 reference to the batch, but that in my opinion begs
4 the question of whether it was a batch at all, and
5 certainly the containers don't seem to form a batch,
6 given they are different.
7 Q. I will give you an opportunity to comment on that,
8 because that is what I want to explore with you.
9 So the jury are absolutely clear on the French
10 testing, I think first of all one subsample of blood
11 taken from the blood retained by Dr Pepin at Toxlab was
12 submitted to Professor Doutrempuich at the University of
13 Bordeaux, and that was called, and this will become
14 relevant in a moment, exhibit 4.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Secondly, a blood sample of the blood retained at Toxlab
17 was given to Dr Pascal, along with a sample of liver and
18 that was sent to the molecular genetics laboratory at
19 Nantes University Hospital.
20 A. Exhibit numbers 3 and 5.
21 Q. That is exhibit 3 for the blood and exhibit 5 for
22 the liver.
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Finally, a subsample of the blood retained by Dr Pepin
25 at Toxlab was send to Professor Mazancourt at

110
1 the Raymond Poincare Hospital in Garches.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. The DNA samples, the subsamples of blood and the liver
4 tissue, they were taken from a box that had been kept in
5 Toxlab under refrigerated conditions, weren't they?
6 A. Freezing conditions? Yes.
7 Q. And the samples, the subsamples that were DNA'd were
8 taken for the purposes of the French proceedings from
9 the same batch of samples that were taken by
10 Professor Lecomte on 31st August 1997.
11 A. They were in the same box.
12 Q. They were in the same box and they all bore the labels
13 "Paul Henry" or "Henri Paul" and carried an
14 identification number 2147.
15 A. I note that one of them has 2147 written on the top and
16 none of the others have. These are minor things perhaps
17 to the lay person but they are important professionally.
18 Q. They still had labels on.
19 A. I agree with the labelling.
20 Q. Only one vial has 2147 on the cap but they all had
21 labels on indicating Henri Paul and repeated
22 the reference number.
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. So that the jury can understand the significance of
25 the circumstances in which they were seized and from

111
1 which batch they were taken, can I ask please that
2 the following document is put up [INQ0051958]?
3 So that you are aware of the document, this is
4 the report of Captain Donnadieu which you refer to in
5 your second report submitted with your second opinion.
6 I wonder if we could highlight that, or make it
7 readable.
8 First of all, it bears the date of
9 10th February 2005.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Under the paragraph "Investigation", if that could be
12 enlarged, please, to the bottom of the page, it says:
13 "Dr Pepin took us into a room used for
14 the preservation of samples."
15 Then:
16 "I noted that the samples taken from the persons of
17 Mr Henri Paul during his post mortem examination were
18 either frozen or, in the case of body and head hair,
19 preserved at dry ambient temperature. The frozen
20 samples were in a polystyrene box at the bottom of deep
21 freeze reference number ... displaying a temperature of
22 minus 23 degrees."
23 If we could go to the next page of the report,
24 please, and highlight from the centre of the page down:
25 "At 10.40 hours we removed the polystyrene box from

112
1 the aforementioned freezer."
2 Then the next paragraph:
3 "At 10.45 hours we opened the box. Inside it we
4 found a white plastic IML-type box with the number 2147
5 and the name 'Paul Henry' in blue ink with the date
6 31st August 1997, 'Doctor Lecomte' written on it.
7 I also noted the presence of two paper labels ... Once
8 the box was opened we found eight vials of various sizes
9 with white caps and a glass tube with a red rubber
10 stopper. One of the vials with a white cap had the
11 number 2147 on the top of the cap. It was wrapped in an
12 IML-type printed label marked [and he gives the number,
13 name, date, cardiac blood, Dr Lecomte]. Another vial
14 with a white cap has the same type of inscriptions on
15 the same type of label, but marked 'liver'."
16 These were eventually the two that were seized on
17 this occasion for DNA analysis, is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Then next paragraph:
20 "At my request, Dr Pepin left these two vials to
21 defrost to ambient temperature with a view to thawing
22 them so that they could be split into three equal parts,
23 one of which will remain in the laboratory, the two
24 others having to be sent to the two appointed DNA
25 experts."

113
1 Then last sentence:
2 "The total content of the IML vial was divided into
3 three identical volumes, the last of which remained in
4 the original vial. Once the blood had been put into
5 the two half-filled tubes ... they were sealed 3 and 4."
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Then over the next page, please, we can see at the top
8 of the page that the liver sample is sealed as
9 exhibit 5.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then in the plastic box it describes the remainder of
12 the vials and identified each one of them as Paul Henry,
13 with various tissue descriptions, et cetera.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Next paragraph:
16 "The remainder of the cardiac blood and liver were
17 sealed, exhibits 7 and 8."
18 Then the penultimate paragraph:
19 "In agreement with the examining magistrate ..."
20 Dr Pepin held 7 and 8 in his custody at that time.
21 A. Could I, if it is at all possible, to illustrate
22 something, if we take the paragraph before the one you
23 opened with, I have it labelled D877. It is that page,
24 forward one page and still inside I think the paragraph
25 begins -- it is the fourth paragraph.

114
1 This is the box containing the actual samples, as
2 I understand it, containing the material that was used
3 for toxicology.
4 Q. Are you referring to the blood alcohol?
5 A. Well, we don't know, because it says in this -- and this
6 is one of the questions -- the photograph says it
7 contains the "residue from analyses", without describing
8 the analyses. Going back to Mr Green's point and
9 myself, the material did seem to exist there, if the
10 material was being seized for DNA, to do it on that
11 material.
12 It is a question raised, but I cannot answer.
13 Q. Yes, we don't know what was in that box, because they
14 didn't open it.
15 A. It does seem strange not to open it and then it goes
16 missing.
17 Q. I will be going back, so you will have an opportunity
18 about the blood alcohol analysis.
19 This exercise was photographed by the judicial
20 police.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. [INQ0051961] on the next page, please. I think we can
23 see from the captions next to those photographs that
24 the top photograph shows "View of the frozen samples
25 placed in a polystyrene box at the bottom of the

115
1 freezer".
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And we can see the temperature at which they were
4 stored.
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Then if I can turn to [INQ0051967], this is
7 the photograph of the polystyrene box, Professor --
8 I think it must be beyond that one.
9 A. That is the one that was not opened.
10 Q. If we can go to the next page [INQ0051968], the bottom
11 picture is the box that was opened and we can see that
12 the polystyrene box has been wax sealed by the French
13 experts, as is their practice when sealing exhibits
14 which have been examined and retained.
15 A. This only shows the last person. There are eight or
16 nine dates when it was opened. This particular
17 technique only answers the question of the last person
18 to seal it, and not its provenance.
19 Q. Yes, but those are the expert's seals that we can see
20 shown there.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Over the page, [INQ0051969], we see two more closer
23 views of that. Finally, as far as the photographs are
24 concerned, we see over the page, [INQ0051970], we can
25 see the plastic tub, as it has been referred to --

116
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You recall that. I do not think it is a Wall's
3 container --
4 A. I do not think so, no.
5 Q. But it is the plastic tub which contains eight vials
6 said to contain tissue samples and blood that had been
7 taken from the corpse identified as Henri Paul on
8 31st August 1997.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Professor, so that you know what I am talking about and
11 so the jury can understand, that is the batch of samples
12 to which I refer.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, it is right, isn't it, that when the blood samples
15 were DNA tested, so the blood samples that were taken
16 from that container, they produced a match to Henri Paul
17 in DNA terms?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. As did the liver?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Which was taken again from that same batch.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the liver sample and the blood samples have
24 identical DNA characteristics.
25 A. Yes.

117
1 Q. We also know, do we not, that other samples from that
2 same batch were sent to toxicology?
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. These were the samples that were taken by
5 Professor Lecomte from the corpse said to be Henri Paul.
6 A. Are you referring here to the liver or the blood? When
7 you say "other samples".
8 Q. Other blood that was submitted, for example, not for DNA
9 but for blood alcohol quantitative analysis.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So we know, for example, that from that batch
12 Professor Ricordel received a sample of blood.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And he recorded a blood alcohol content of 1.8 or
15 thereabouts.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Dr Pepin did a counteranalysis and he recorded 1.7 on
18 the counteranalysis.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. But it is right, isn't it, that in addition, blood from
21 that same batch was subject to other toxicological
22 tests, not just that the person had been drinking
23 alcohol --
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. -- but the person had in fact been consuming Prozac and

118
1 tiapride?
2 A. Apparently this is toxicology.
3 Q. Yes. I think you are aware of the results. I am not
4 going to ask you about the technicalities of it.
5 A. No, but to explain, the pipettes used, the tips could be
6 DNA profiled.
7 Q. We all accept that the ideal thing would be to have
8 the same sample tested for blood alcohol and DNA, but
9 that is not possible. What we are trying to help
10 the jury with is how strong a chain of evidence there is
11 to connect these samples in that plastic tub with
12 Henri Paul and hence the blood alcohol reading. Do you
13 understand?
14 A. Yes, indeed.
15 Q. A subsample taken from that batch showed not only that
16 the person had been consuming alcohol, but had been
17 taking the prescribed drugs, Prozac and tiapride?
18 A. I have to accept those results, yes.
19 Q. And we know that Henri Paul had been prescribed those
20 drugs by his general practitioner.
21 A. From a forensic science point of view there is a match.
22 The difficulty is assessing the significance of the
23 match, which I think is where the toxicologists were
24 going.
25 Q. I am going to run through the various samples with you

119
1 just to see how strong a connection there is with
2 Henri Paul.
3 A. I can't speak to --
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have had an awful lot of
5 evidence about this, and it is not really this witness's
6 territory.
7 MR MACLEOD: I promise that I will be as succinct as I can
8 but there is an important point I am getting to.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You mean you want to make
10 a speech to the jury through the witness?
11 MR MACLEOD: No, sir, far from it.
12 For example, another sample taken from this batch
13 was urine.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Showing again Prozac and tiapride being taken by
16 the person whose urine it was.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Other samples said to be taken from the same corpse,
19 Henri Paul, hair and spinal cord, also showed Prozac and
20 tiapride.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And the vitreous humour which was tested came from that
23 same batch and gave a similar alcohol reading to
24 the blood.
25 A. As I recall, the toxicologist's view was a suspiciously

120
1 similar ...
2 Q. We will not go over that ground, because we have been
3 through it with the toxicologists.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No, because you are digging
5 yourself into a hole.
6 MR MACLEOD: No, far from it.
7 I am going to ask you the same question that I asked
8 Professor Vanezis and Professor Oliver: do you not agree
9 that that provides powerful evidence that those samples
10 contained within that batch, that plastic tub, belonged
11 to Henri Paul?
12 A. Those samples that had DNA performed on them I am
13 convinced for all practical purposes belonged to
14 Henri Paul.
15 The samples tested for drugs have never been linked
16 in that sense. The linkage between them, as
17 I understand your argument, is similarities in
18 the drugs. I go back to my black hair argument of how
19 common would those drugs be. In fact, the drugs may not
20 be independent. Someone who is alcohol-dependent may
21 take two or more drugs. I'm not a toxicologist. I
22 don't know.
23 Q. It may be a matter, as I think the toxicologists said,
24 and I think as Mr Keen commented, it is as much a matter
25 of common sense as anything else. Leaving that aside --

121
1 A. Sorry, I have to disagree with the common sense argument
2 because one of the purposes of bringing science into it
3 is to decide where common sense is augmented by
4 the statistical analysis. I think while people can make
5 the assumption that because things are similar, they
6 necessarily go together, it is the purpose of our work
7 to try to put some weight on that evidence as opposed to
8 speculate.
9 Q. The point I am trying to make to you, Professor, is
10 this: if these samples had come from someone other than
11 Henri Paul, first of all the samples would have to
12 contain blood that coincidentally matched his DNA, those
13 samples that were DNA tested.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And secondly, that other person, the stranger, would
16 have to have been consuming Prozac and tiapride as well.
17 A. Yes. Can I take you then along the -- what you are
18 saying is there is a consistent message in all of this.
19 The inconsistent message is the carbon monoxide level,
20 which is inexplicable. I think Professor Johnson put
21 the view that the most obvious explanation is that
22 it wasn't-- this is the glaring inconsistency in
23 the story, and while I undoubtedly agree there is
24 a consistency in the story, there is a glaring
25 inconsistency that causes me a problem when assessing

122
1 the totality of the evidence.
2 Q. Can I take you to that important matter in a moment?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Leaving aside the 31st August autopsy, there is another
5 layer of evidence which is the 4th September autopsy and
6 the samples taken --
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Macleod, you are really just
8 getting into argument on all of this. We all know that
9 there is a serious problem about the chain of custody,
10 and we all know that the ultimate question is that
11 the jury have to look at the whole picture, see the sort
12 of inferences that can be drawn, one way and the other,
13 look at problems like the carboxyhaemoglobin level, and
14 that is a minus, and there are all sorts of pluses with
15 the drugs and so forth. The jury has to look at
16 the whole picture.
17 We have been down that road with all of the experts
18 in that field and I do not think it is very profitable
19 to ask a professor whose speciality is DNA to, as it
20 were, second guess a whole lot of evidence, some of
21 which he has heard and some of which he has not heard.
22 MR MACLEOD: I appreciate that point, but I promise I am
23 going to get to the point which I want to develop with
24 this particular expert speedily.
25 Just to summarise it very briefly, there is

123
1 the separate evidence of the autopsy on 4th September,
2 which resulted in a similar blood alcohol reading from
3 the one sample that was submitted for that test, and
4 then the remaining sample DNA'd positive match to
5 Henri Paul.
6 A. Again, two separate samples.
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. I should clarify, I was the head of the Police Forensic
9 Science Laboratory in Edinburgh -- I missed that one.
10 We did the blood alcohols there. Blood alcohol is
11 actually tested on the air above the blood and does not
12 use up the blood, is my best understanding. And I am
13 perplexed at the description of the samples being used
14 for toxicological analysis. I defer to my toxicological
15 colleagues, but I am at a loss to understand how all of
16 the sample is used up and why the femoral gauche or
17 droite, whatever one wants to describe, could not have
18 been done for DNA and alcohol. Mr Green is still in
19 court, I do not know if he would care to comment on
20 that.
21 Q. I think your point is expressed in your letter of
22 27th February 2008:
23 "What remains at issue is that it is my
24 understanding that they, ie the DNA sampled subsamples
25 of blood, were not the samples subjected to and consumed

124
1 in performing the toxicological analyses. Specifically,
2 they were not those used to determine the blood alcohol
3 concentration."
4 That is the issue that I think that can be expressed
5 in a nutshell that troubles you.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it is that that I want to ask you about.
8 Is it your understanding that those samples which
9 were used to test the blood alcohol levels by
10 Professor Ricordel on 31st August and Dr Pepin on
11 1st September were used up --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- in those analyses?
14 A. That is what I have been told.
15 Q. I think I can demonstrate that to you if necessary, but
16 I think you have seen a document, 7th November 2005,
17 from Professor Ricordel, which is a statement which
18 says:
19 "I can inform you that I no longer have any blood
20 samples relating to this case. The only tube available
21 with the IML number 2147 which was given to me on
22 1st September was used in the course of testing.
23 The remainder was destroyed, in accordance with
24 the procedure with blood alcohol testing, after 12 or
25 13 months of preservation."

125
1 I think you understand also that Dr Pepin's blood
2 that was used for analysis on 1st September was totally
3 consumed in the blood alcohol analysis.
4 A. Allegedly.
5 Q. Now, the question -- well, I can show you a document
6 that has been released in the Bellancourt proceedings.
7 A. This is a statement from an eye witness, what
8 effectively is an eye witness, and in the studies that
9 I have done here it is quite clear that the eye witness
10 records are quite different from what is on photographic
11 records, for example. As a forensic scientist, I have
12 to go on what the evidence is for ... so this is an eye
13 witness statement rather than -- I have asked to see
14 the laboratory notes that would show how much was
15 consumed, because they should know how much they
16 received, and that is what I would do in a criminal
17 trial.
18 Q. Can I ask you to look at this? It is Dr Pepin's sample
19 summary. You must have seen this. It was provided by
20 the lawyers for Mr Al Fayed from the Bellancourt
21 proceedings.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. If we could highlight the very last entry, please,
24 number 19, here we see a table of what has happened to
25 all the samples that were in Dr Pepin's possession at

126
1 Toxlab. At 19, it shows date sample taken, third
2 column, 31st August 1997, by Professor Lecomte. Date
3 received at Dr Pepin's laboratory, 1st September.
4 Description of sample, "blood". Type of analysis
5 carried out, "alcohol". So this was the Dr Pepin
6 counteranalysis where he came to a reading of 1.7.
7 Sample remaining, "not". Comment "completely used for
8 analysis".
9 So, if I could next please ask for the jury to look
10 at the summary of toxicological results in this 87-page
11 loose-leaf bundle --
12 A. Can I just verify, was there a question to me on the
13 "completely used"? I am not clear whether I have to
14 answer anything on that. It is simply a statement. It
15 doesn't tell me the volumes that would verify to me as
16 a scientist.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I go back to it, an alcohol test is done on the air
19 above the blood in a tube, and I cannot see how it is
20 used.
21 Q. What I am driving at, Professor, is what blood was DNA'd
22 when the French police visited the Toxlab premises in
23 2005. Okay?
24 Could we keep Dr Pepin's sample up, please? If
25 we could highlight entry number 9.

127
1 We can see at entry number 9, Professor Jamieson,
2 date sample taken, 31st August. Person taking sample,
3 Professor Lecomte. Date received at Dr Pepin's
4 laboratory, 4th September. Cardiac blood. Test
5 analysis carried out, "alcohol/toxicology". Sample
6 remaining "6 ml". Comment, "Preserved at 4 degrees then
7 frozen".
8 That is the sample of blood from which the French
9 investigators took subsamples in 2005, is it not?
10 A. It could be.
11 Q. If we look at this document, if this document could be
12 put under what Mr Foley and I affectionately call
13 the "thingy" -- members of the jury, I hope you have
14 that document -- at the top of the page, we can see that
15 the first page deals with the summary of toxicological
16 results for 31st August 1997 by Professor Lecomte. In
17 the left-hand column, we can see the three blood samples
18 that were delivered to: firstly, Professor Ricordel,
19 which we know was used up completely in the course of
20 one of his tests and then destroyed 12 to 13 months
21 later; secondly, Dr Pepin's counteranalysis on 1st
22 September, which was used up in the course of the
23 analysis; and then thirdly, the only other blood sample
24 delivered to Toxlab is 4th September, which we have just
25 seen on Dr Pepin's summary of results, and we can see

128
1 that the tests carried out on that sample, which was
2 Henri Paul's blood, is qualitative presence of alcohol.
3 So it did not define the amount of alcohol in his blood,
4 but it detected the presence of alcohol, is that right?
5 A. It is.
6 Q. Then we can see presence of fluoxetine, norfluoxetine
7 and tiapride, the selfsame combination of drugs. But,
8 most importantly, we can see that that sample was
9 the same sample that was submitted for testing for
10 carboxyhaemoglobin on 9th September.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So, not only was the blood that was DNA'd blood that was
13 subjected to a toxicological analysis for Prozac and
14 tiapride, but the blood that was DNA'd was also the
15 blood that had been the subject of the
16 carboxyhaemoglobin test.
17 A. Is that true?
18 Q. It is.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. That means that whatever the reason for
21 the carboxyhaemoglobin result, it was from Henri Paul's
22 blood.
23 A. Yes.
24 MR MACLEOD: I have no more questions.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard?

129
1 MR HILLIARD: Nothing I want to ask, thank you.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much indeed,
3 Professor.
4 We are going to have our break now and we will
5 resume at quarter to four.
6 How long is the remaining witness likely to be?
7 MR BURNETT: Sir, I am bound to say that I would expect
8 the witness to be more than three-quarters of an hour.
9 I will have a word with my learned friend Mr Croxford,
10 who I know has an interest in this, during the break and
11 try to get a better sense of it.
12 (3.30 pm)
13 (A short break)

130
5 (Jury present)
6 MR MARK ADRIAN STOKES (sworn)
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would you prefer to sit down,
8 Mr Stokes?
9 Questions from MR BURNETT
10 MR BURNETT: Is your name Mark Adrian Stokes?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Are you head of the Forensic Digital Evidence Unit of
13 the Metropolitan Police?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. Did you previously work -- and I will list all of these
16 and I hope I have it right and you can assent at the
17 end -- for the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science
18 Laboratory from 1986 to 1995, the Metropolitan Police
19 Technical Support Unit from then until 2000,
20 the Forensic Telecommunications Services from 2000 to
21 2003, and then the Home Office Forensic Science Service
22 from 2003 to 2004 until you took up your current post?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Mr Stokes, you are here to help us with mobile
25 telephones, which is a subject within your expertise.

131
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. And one about which you have given evidence on numerous
3 occasions in courts over quite some period.
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. Perhaps I can start by simply trying to put into context
6 why we are asking you questions so that it might help
7 the jury. And also to introduce -- and I hope we have
8 copies -- an exhibit that you are going to refer to from
9 time to time.
10 It is right, isn't it, that you were asked to review
11 data which had been collated by the French authorities
12 concerning mobile telephone calls made between midnight
13 and 1 o'clock in the central parts of Paris that we are
14 concerned with?
15 A. Yes, indeed.
16 Q. In particular, the purpose of your doing that was to
17 identify in a single form and single document the mobile
18 telephone calls recorded as having occurred by
19 the French authorities in respect of the paparazzi, as
20 we are calling them?
21 A. Yes, I was.
22 Q. In that connection, have you produced a bundle of
23 exhibits which we shall go to as we need to, but perhaps
24 copies could be handed now to the jury?
25 These are quite large, as you will see, A3 copies.

132
1 Is there one for everybody? Yes. There is one for each
2 of you. As we go to the exhibits, given their size, you
3 may in the end find it easier to share one between two.
4 But I will obviously leave that to you.
5 I have mentioned that we are interested generally in
6 looking for where various paparazzi were at different
7 times. Can I first, through you, find out what
8 information you were provided with so that we know
9 the starting point, as it were, and then, through
10 the exhibits, try to see where that takes us?
11 A. Yes, indeed.
12 Q. There are two of the paparazzi; namely Mr Odekerken and
13 Mr Chassery, in respect of whom you have call data
14 records provided through the French dossier. That is
15 right, I think, isn't it?
16 A. That is correct, yes.
17 Q. And call data records provide you with a great deal of
18 information if those calls have been made by mobile
19 telephones or received by mobile telephones, is that
20 right?
21 A. Yes, indeed they do.
22 Q. Perhaps you could simply summarise in a sentence or two
23 the type of information that that provides you with,
24 without technical detail at this stage if you would be
25 so kind.

133
1 A. Yes, indeed. The call data records themselves are
2 normally for only connected calls and they will be
3 recorded at the time and date that the call connects,
4 along with other information. The majority of that
5 information is for billing purposes, to send you,
6 the customer, a bill, and other technical information
7 that assists the network provider running the network.
8 One of those is the identity of the cell that the call
9 connects through at the time that call is made by
10 the person whose call record it is.
11 Q. So you have a time, a length of the call and,
12 importantly, you have the cell through which the call
13 has connected, for both ends if it is both mobile, would
14 that be right?
15 A. No, it is for the mobile in question that that call
16 record relates to. But it doesn't matter if it is an
17 incoming call to that mobile, it will then record where
18 the mobile being called is against the cell, or
19 the opposite way round, if that person makes a call with
20 that mobile, which cell that call connected through.
21 Q. So, if we have a record of both ends of the call, as
22 we will see we do for Mr Chassery and Mr Odekerken for
23 quite a few calls, then we get the cell sites for each
24 of them.
25 A. In this case they are fortunately both on the same

134
1 network, so we have call records which are identical for
2 both parties.
3 Q. In general terms, and we will start at the general level
4 if we may, if the operator has provided the information,
5 it's possible to identify the range of the relevant cell
6 site.
7 A. Yes. Without again going into technicalities, each cell
8 will have a defined coverage area that can be measured
9 or can be predicted by a computer system.
10 Q. That is not precisely accurate, as I understand it; in
11 other words, the boundaries may appear to be clear on
12 maps that are drawn, but in reality they might be rather
13 hazy and different, cell sites overlapping with each
14 other.
15 A. In this particular case, the only information
16 we received were computer predictions and I would call
17 them relatively crude computer predictions, of
18 the predicted coverage of certain cell sites.
19 Q. With that information, in other words, the predicted
20 coverage of a cell site, if you have call data records
21 which put the user of a cellphone within that cell site,
22 you can, with some degree of confidence, suggest that
23 the person concerned was within that area or fairly
24 close to it?
25 A. Yes, indeed.

135
1 Q. So, that is how it works when we have the call data
2 records.
3 A. Yes, indeed.
4 Q. In this case, if we perhaps could invite the jury to
5 turn to exhibit 9, which is towards the back of the
6 bundle, and if that could come up on the screen to help
7 others, it will be the next page.
8 Here, am I right in thinking that we have what you
9 have described as the computer predictions for
10 the coverage of a number of cell sites in Central Paris?
11 [INQ-MAS0009-2 - link to follow]
12 A. Yes, we were given French documents from SFR's network
13 which related to the future predictions of
14 certain sectors of certain cell sites.
15 Q. You have translated all of those into a single drawing,
16 and perhaps we can just have a quick look at them,
17 because some of these numbers will appear when we look
18 at the data itself.
19 Cell site 07563 is the green colour, the rather
20 spring-like green in the middle, towards the top. That
21 is a perfect rectangle on the computer prediction. Is
22 that how it in fact is likely to work in practice?
23 A. No. These days, science has moved on, we would go out
24 and measure the cell sites and measure electronically
25 their coverage area, and the coverage would be scattered

136
1 depending upon the topography, the buildings and other
2 factors around each sector, each part of that cell site.
3 Q. If we look to the right of that green box, we see two
4 pink boxes which have attributed to them a different
5 cell identification, 07554.
6 Just in a sentence or two, why have we got two boxes
7 there rather than just one, as we have for the others?
8 A. Again, this is the same coverage from the same part of
9 the cell site, but it is what the topography, the ground
10 there and the computer would have predicted, because
11 the computer system will have an internal map of what
12 the ground is doing, the height of the ground at any
13 point, and the computer prediction is saying that
14 coverage from that site would cover crudely those two
15 areas.
16 Q. Then we have the very light green or yellowy colour,
17 17563, immediately to the left of that one, and then
18 next to that a darker green, 27563.
19 If we look at those cell sites, we will see marked
20 the Ritz Hotel in the top pink box.
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. These are parts of Paris that the jury are fairly
23 familiar with, but we see the Place de la Concorde
24 pretty much on the intersection of the three different
25 greeny colours.

137
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. Then to the left of this particular plan, we have a blue
3 rectangle which covers the Alma Tunnel and that is
4 27503.
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. Those are the only cell sites in respect of which
7 the French documents contained computer predictions;
8 am I right?
9 A. Yes, it was.
10 Q. A number of other cell sites appear in the telephone
11 calls made by Mr Chassery and Mr Odekerken, but
12 the French dossier simply did not contain information
13 concerning them.
14 A. No, there was no predictions for those.
15 Q. I know that your task essentially over the last few
16 weeks has been to try to pull together the mass of
17 French information in a way that is digestible.
18 Am I right in thinking that you have made contact with
19 the relevant mobile phone operator to see whether more
20 information could be provided, but they were unable to
21 help you?
22 A. They were unable to help us.
23 Q. So that is how it works when we have, as I say, the call
24 data records.
25 A. Yes, with the cell identities on them.

138
1 Q. We will come back to that in a little while.
2 That information, as I understand it, is available
3 only in respect of Odekerken and Chassery.
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. And not in respect of any of the other paparazzi or
6 other people with whom there might be some interest.
7 A. That was the only call data in all of the French
8 documents relating to Chassery and Odekerken.
9 Q. But I am right in thinking, aren't I, that the French
10 dossier contains a 90-page document giving details of
11 literally hundreds of calls, mobile calls, made between
12 midnight and 1 o'clock, and that is what you have been
13 through to try to extract material concerning
14 the paparazzi?
15 A. Yes, that was the further document that we had to go by.
16 Q. That document provides all sorts of different
17 information, we will come to more of it in a moment, but
18 one of the things it does is attribute calls to one of
19 three areas; is that right?
20 A. Yes, it appears to crudely identify where mobiles were
21 and put them into three broad areas.
22 Q. Those areas are Vendome, for Place Vendome?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Concorde for Place de la Concorde, and Alma for
25 the Alma Tunnel.

139
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. It is right, isn't it, that in respect of quite a number
3 of calls, the charts that were put together by
4 the French police refine that by introducing a C/V, in
5 other words, somewhere that is covered both by
6 the Concorde and Vendome areas?
7 A. Yes. It would appear so. They couldn't decide which
8 area to put them in, so it is between the two.
9 Q. Would the jury be right in thinking that the 90 pages of
10 tables of all these calls really represent the collation
11 of information without any underlying explanation of
12 where it came from, how it was contained and, in respect
13 of the areas that we have identified, no explanation of
14 how those areas were determined?
15 A. Yes, it seems to be -- well, there is incredibly little
16 information on how this document -- I think there is one
17 document from a French police officer that indicates
18 broadly how this document was put together, but it looks
19 like just a collation of information, some of which may
20 have been obtained by the mobile phone networks working
21 there in Paris at the time.
22 Q. So, what those documents simply don't do is identify in
23 any way what area is covered by each of the three that
24 we have been talking about, namely Alma, Concorde and
25 Vendome.

140
1 A. Yes, there's no underlying data available to make any
2 logical sense or to support the areas that have been
3 selected and assigned, or better words, attributed to
4 these mobile telephones.
5 Q. You have had a go at trying to make some sense of this
6 by again producing some charts which perhaps we could go
7 to in just a moment.
8 But my preliminary question on that is simply this:
9 in producing these charts you are trying to put some
10 clothing on to the bare bones of the information in
11 the French material, but you are not seeking to suggest
12 that the charts that you have produced are necessarily
13 identical with the areas that the French police had in
14 mind?
15 A. No, not at all. They are just centred around the areas
16 that they have attributed phones to.
17 Q. So what you have done is to take a point in the middle
18 of Place Vendome --
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. -- and you have drawn a circle around it with a radius
21 of a kilometre.
22 A. A kilometre, yes.
23 Q. And the underlying reasoning, although you emphasise
24 it is not necessarily what the French police did, but
25 the underlying reasoning is that if there were a cell

141
1 site in the middle of Place Vendome, then a radius of
2 a kilometre is what one would expect, about.
3 A. Yes, indeed. If the site was in the centre of
4 Place Vendome, then a kilometre radius would be
5 approximately the area that we would expect that mobile
6 phone to have been in that was attributed to that area
7 at that time.
8 Q. You have done the same for Concorde and for
9 the Alma Tunnel. That is right, isn't it?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. By doing that exercise, one gets the charts that appear
12 at exhibits 10 and 11.
13 Can we go to exhibit 10 first? Let's see if we can
14 just go through this. We see marked the Ritz Hotel
15 front and back. That is in the middle, is that right?
16 A. Yes indeed, yes indeed.
17 Q. Then you have put a black dot on the Place Vendome,
18 the south end of it.
19 A. That is correct, yes.
20 Q. A black line running from that black dot is
21 the one kilometre radius?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Then, if we simply followed it round, remembering using
24 dividers at school, we would get the circle which is
25 entirely light blue.

142
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. It's important to emphasise that you are not suggesting
3 that this is what the French police did, this is just
4 something that is illustrative and might be of some
5 assistance.
6 A. It was my way of trying to aid us understand where these
7 phones may have been as attributed by the French police.
8 Q. Then as we move a little across, to areas the jury are
9 terribly familiar with, Concorde, the black dot with
10 a one kilometre radius and a circle around that, and
11 that circle to the left is pink.
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. One sees the intersection between Concorde and Vendome
14 as have you done it in this way.
15 A. Yes, indeed.
16 Q. Now, if we turn the page to 11, you have done the same
17 exercise for the crash site, so right on top of the
18 Alma Tunnel. And although you have not drawn all three
19 circles on the same piece of paper, because it would
20 possibly become rather overburdened, if members of the
21 jury were to look at MAS11 and see that that circle
22 extends almost all the way to the Place de la Concorde,
23 and you can see it goes as far as the "P" in
24 Champs-Elysees, just written by the river, do you see
25 that? Then, if you were just to flick back to the page

143
1 before, you will get a good sense I think, won't you,
2 Mr Stokes, of how far into the Concorde circle
3 the Alma Tunnel circle extends? Indeed, if one looks
4 for the "P" by the river in Champs-Elysees, we can see
5 that doing it that way, the Alma circle pretty well
6 touches the edge of the Vendome circle.
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. So would it be right to assume that the exercise of
9 attribution of a call to A for Alma, C for Concorde,
10 V for Vendome, C/V for Concorde/Vendome, is inevitably
11 a very imprecise exercise?
12 A. Yes. Again, it depends what it was based on. If it was
13 purely based on the cell site coverage area or where
14 the mast was located, then extremely imprecise. But it
15 could have also been based on other information
16 available. This is just a compilation of data by
17 a French police officer.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If we look at page 11, that is
19 the Alma Tunnel one, then you have a little box near
20 the top of the page to the right of centre, area A, Alma
21 Bridge, then you have a whole series of call numbers.
22 Do I take it that what you are saying is broadly,
23 gleaning this information from the French, all those
24 calls emanated from a mobile somewhere within that
25 circle?

144
1 A. Yes. Taking the French attributation to be what it is,
2 they are the calls from a schedule that we have
3 produced --
4 MR BURNETT: Which we will look at in just a second.
5 A. -- for the paparazzi into that area.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Are they all outgoing calls?
7 A. No. They are all for the mobile where it might have
8 been.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So it could be outgoing or
10 incoming?
11 A. Yes, it could be receiving or making a call, sir.
12 MR BURNETT: As the Coroner has identified, you have written
13 on to these charts the calls that, using this sort of
14 exercise, doing your best with the French information,
15 might, subject to the uncertainties, be located within
16 each of those circles.
17 A. That is correct, yes.
18 Q. You have produced a schedule which tries to bring
19 together all of the relevant information, and that is at
20 MAS3.
21 Mr Stokes, the jury has this and everybody else in
22 court has this. I am not going to ask for it to be put
23 up on screen, because it contains an enormous amount of
24 personal information; that is to say home addresses,
25 telephone numbers and matters of that sort which it

145
1 would not be appropriate generally to transmit to
2 the world.
3 A. Yes, indeed.
4 Q. So I hope everybody can follow from the documents that
5 you have, rather than from the screen.
6 This is MAS3 in the top right-hand corner.
7 Am I right in thinking, some of this I hope speaks for
8 itself, that this schedule, which runs to four pages,
9 has on the left-hand side and the right-hand side a call
10 number which is simply a chronological number of
11 the calls that have been extracted from the vast amount
12 of information we have been talking about?
13 A. Yes, and you will see they actually go across maybe one
14 or more call events.
15 Q. We will have a look at some of those.
16 The second column is the time of the call. That
17 perhaps speaks for itself.
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. The third column is the call duration, if you know it.
20 If we just pick that up for a moment, because
21 I think this is something that is really very easy to
22 follow. We will see that the duration information is
23 only available in respect of calls that have next to
24 them some yellow or purple boxes.
25 A. That is correct.

146
1 Q. And the yellow and purple boxes are, as one can see
2 quite readily looking at it, records of calls made by
3 Odekerken and Chassery.
4 A. Yes, taken from their call data records.
5 Q. That is the next point, that you have the information
6 because they are the only two in respect of which you
7 have call data records.
8 A. Yes. They are the only ones that there will be
9 a duration for and cell site information.
10 Q. The next column has a phone number in it, which you
11 describe as the A party.
12 A. That's correct. Yes.
13 Q. That is one end of the call. We will come back to see
14 how it works as we cross the columns.
15 Then, the next column has the identification of
16 the subscriber for that phone.
17 A. Yes, again attributed by the French police.
18 Q. That is another important point, that the French
19 police -- and within the dossier -- had a list of all
20 the mobile telephone numbers and you have assumed that
21 that list is accurate.
22 A. Yes, this is a direct copy from that list.
23 Q. Then, in the next column we see the network, where
24 known, and there were in fact I think three networks
25 operating in this part of Paris in respect of which

147
1 the French police have information.
2 A. Yes, that is our understanding from the documents again.
3 Q. Is it right to assume that there were only three
4 networks operating, or is that an assumption we cannot
5 make?
6 A. Again, that is only gleaned from the French documents.
7 We could not ascertain any further. Of digital mobile
8 telephones those are the only three networks that
9 we could find existing at that time.
10 Q. The next column is incoming and outgoing. At this
11 stage, that relates only to Odekerken and Chassery.
12 A. Yes, it does.
13 Q. Then, the next column, again relating only to Odekerken
14 and Chassery, the cell identification.
15 A. Yes, indeed.
16 Q. So, if we pause immediately to look at the first purple
17 entry under that, we see 07563.
18 A. That is correct. Yes.
19 Q. Which is what I called the spring green, and we will go
20 and look at it again in a minute. But that is what we
21 are talking about.
22 A. I termed them green, light green and dark green, if that
23 helps.
24 Q. Thank you. I had forgotten how you had done it.
25 The next column, if we keep looking at this, is

148
1 the other party to the call?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. With, again, identification of the subscriber, the
4 network again, the direction again and the cell ID.
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. So we have cantered across the page, I hope everyone is
7 following and I am not going too quickly.
8 Then we come to the last columns. You have headed
9 this, "From the summary of communications", so this is
10 the 90-page French chart.
11 A. Yes, this is from the compilation by the French police.
12 Q. We have in the first of these columns E for incoming and
13 S for outgoing. We need not trouble why those letters
14 were chosen.
15 My question for you is this: let's have a look at
16 the first line, call 1, 0003, the A party is
17 Jacques Langevin and the B party, Stephan Cardinale.
18 Immediately under that, you have the same names
19 the other way round.
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. If we stick with the first line, we see an S there for
22 outgoing.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Does the S there relate to the first subscriber
25 identified; in other words, what is called here the A

149
1 party?
2 A. Yes. That is why we have labelled them A party and
3 B party. The E and the S relate to the A party. So
4 this in effect would be an outgoing call from
5 the number ending 827 to the 938 number below.
6 Q. That is the same all the way down these columns. If one
7 always looks at the E and S and goes back to
8 the A party, it makes sense. So, this is a Langevin
9 outgoing call to Cardinale.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then we have information still under call 1 which is
12 the other way round; Cardinale comes first, Langevin
13 second, and it is incoming to Cardinale.
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. I hope that that is clear to everybody.
16 Then, the last column is the area and there we see
17 C/V, A, C, V, and so on, as we have discussed.
18 A. That is correct, again from the French documentation.
19 Q. The jury have been bombarded with schedules and DVDs and
20 evidence that relate to time, and all of these pieces of
21 information condescend to every last second.
22 There is no way, I suppose, that we can tell whether
23 the timing in the first of the columns -- so again if
24 we look at the first one, it is 00.00.03, so that is
25 three seconds past midnight?

150
1 A. Yes, it is hours, minutes and seconds.
2 Q. We have no way of knowing whether the timing on
3 the mobile phone record clocks, as it were, is the same
4 as that on the Ritz CCTV or the emergency service calls
5 or anything of that sort?
6 A. In theory, they should be within a few seconds of each
7 other. The clocks within mobile telephone networks
8 are -- in the UK, I can't speak for the ones in
9 France -- are controlled by the governing bodies of
10 telecommunications, which needs to know that your call
11 is timed within a second and that the clocks at
12 the start and end are reasonably accurate.
13 Q. So you would expect the mobile phone times to be pretty
14 well spot on. You cannot speak for the Ritz in Paris.
15 A. No, I cannot.
16 Q. All right. I will try to take some of these quite
17 quickly and just pick up one or two as we go.
18 At the beginning, you have shown us that it is three
19 seconds past midnight, the first call. So it is
20 a little time before the times that are going to become
21 critical for the jury.
22 A. Yes, indeed.
23 Q. We have a call Langevin to Cardinale. Number 2 is
24 a call from Guizard to Martinez. I pass over those.
25 Can we pick up the third call, which is 00.10.54,

151
1 and this is a call from Odekerken to Chassery.
2 A. No, it's the other way round.
3 Q. I am so sorry.
4 A. It is Chassery phoning Odekerken.
5 Q. Well, I am glad it is me that made the first mistake.
6 Thank you.
7 A. It is very easy to do, I assure you.
8 Q. It may be, but I still shouldn't do it.
9 So, Chassery calling Odekerken at 10 minutes 54.
10 A. 54/55. There is a slight second difference between
11 the incoming and outgoing clocks.
12 Q. Chassery is identified as being at cell site 7563.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. If we quickly turn back to that -- it is exhibit 9,
15 members of the jury -- that is the green that you
16 identify.
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. I think all you can say is that it means that
19 Mr Chassery was probably within or near to the area
20 surrounded by that box?
21 A. Yes. It's logical to conclude from this crude, as
22 I say, prediction coverage and also my knowledge,
23 personal knowledge of mobile telephone networks, that
24 it is going to be either within that green area or
25 somewhere close by.

152
1 Q. In fact, the jury have the benefit of CCTV footage from
2 the Ritz so that we have some independent evidence which
3 locates various of the paparazzi at particular times,
4 and I hope I am not going to make another mistake when
5 I say with a certain degree of confidence that Chassery
6 was still outside the Ritz at that time.
7 So that shows that the green box is only an
8 approximation because he was in fact located within
9 the pink box to the right.
10 A. Yes. As I said earlier -- I hope it was clear -- all
11 these cell sites will in reality overlap each other, so
12 there could be quite an overlap between that green area
13 and the pink area.
14 Q. Odekerken is identified as being in 60148. That does
15 not appear on your chart and, sir, there was no data
16 that dealt with that in the French material.
17 Have you any idea where 60148 is?
18 A. No, we could not ascertain from any material we had
19 available to us at the time of this where that site was.
20 Q. The jury will hear evidence, which I shall not take time
21 predicting, about Odekerken driving around in various
22 spots near the Ritz. So that anyway remains a mystery.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If we look at the entries for telephone call number 3,
25 would I be right in thinking that these are entries that

153
1 you have picked up from the 90-page chart?
2 A. Yes, they are.
3 Q. But it is the same -- the next three is the same call?
4 A. Yes. It all seems to relate to the same call. There
5 does seem to be some inaccuracies with that information.
6 Q. If we just look at the third line of call 3, so we have
7 Chassery, Odekerken and then an S -- I hope everyone is
8 following -- that is an outgoing call from Chassery to
9 Odekerken, so that ties up.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. But then we see an A next to it.
12 A. Indeed we do.
13 Q. Which, if it were accurate, would suggest that Chassery
14 was making that call from somewhere in the area
15 identified as Alma.
16 A. Yes, the Alma Tunnel.
17 Q. Yet we know that is not the case because we have
18 the CCTV footage and also, we know it is not the case
19 because you tell us the cell site coverage places him at
20 or near the green one.
21 A. Yes, I would say that that phone, from everything we see
22 in the documentation, is most unlikely to have been over
23 towards the Alma Tunnel.
24 Q. Yes. So does that again provide a pretty vivid
25 illustration of how cautious one has to be in relying

154
1 upon the very broad and crude categorisations of A, C
2 and V?
3 A. Yes. In my experience, this seems to be a typed
4 document of some sort so it could be simply
5 a typographical error or it could be a wrong
6 attribution, sir, yes.
7 Q. Hopping on, I am happy to pause on any call that anyone
8 is interested in, but I am going to hop on, if I may, to
9 number 5. This is another call from Chassery to
10 Odekerken.
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. It is a very short one at 7 seconds. Each of them
13 appears to be in the same cell site location as before.
14 A. Yes, they are.
15 Q. But again, the information in the French 90-page
16 document appears to locate Chassery at A.
17 A. Yes, it does.
18 Q. Which, for reasons you have identified, does not make
19 sense.
20 Call 6, again Chassery to Odekerken.
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. A longer call, 18 or 17 seconds, it matters not. But
23 we see that whilst Odekerken is still recorded as being
24 at 60148, Chassery appears to be at 60016.
25 Do you know how that fits into these particular

155
1 bound areas or elsewhere?
2 A. No, we don't.
3 Q. Then 00.17.01, calls again between the two of them from
4 the same spots.
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. All right. We are moving to a time which becomes of
7 significance because it is at about this time that
8 the car sets off from the back of the Ritz, and I only
9 put it as loosely as that. We also know, because
10 we have photographs, that both Chassery and Odekerken
11 were at the back of the Ritz when the car set off and
12 everyone got in.
13 A. Yes, indeed.
14 Q. Moving on then, call 9, 00.18.29, again, not very long,
15 Chassery to Odekerken, and they are both recorded as
16 being in a cell site covered by 60016.
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Again, we don't know exactly where that was, but
19 the jury have heard something about their movements and
20 will hear much more of their movements next week.
21 Could we turn the page then, please? Could we look
22 at call 10? We are now 00.19.01 and this is the first
23 call that you have identified from all the material that
24 is attributable to Romuald Rat's phone.
25 A. That is correct.

156
1 Q. This is his outgoing call to Odekerken.
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. We don't know how long it lasted, but the sector in
4 which the French documents locate him is C/V, so that is
5 somewhere in the sector overlapped by Vendome and
6 Concorde.
7 A. Yes, I would prefer to refer to that as the "area".
8 Rather than confusing "sector" with the sector of
9 a site. It is just a broad area.
10 Q. Yes, I appreciate "sector" is a term of art in your
11 area. I apologise.
12 We then have call 11, Guizard and Martinez.
13 Call 12 is a call, it would appear, by Serge Arnal
14 incoming from maybe his home number.
15 A. Yes, from what we understand, that is a fixed line
16 number in Paris.
17 Q. So --
18 A. In France I should say, not Paris.
19 Q. Then, call 13 and call 14 and call 15 are calls between
20 Rat and Odekerken.
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. So, if you just look at 14 first, this is Rat calling
23 Odekerken?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. At 20 minutes and 17 seconds.

157
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Again, for what it is worth, located at C/V.
3 A. Yes, indeed.
4 Q. Then, if we move to call 15, it would appear to be
5 a call from Rat to Odekerken -- so we are now 20.47?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. And it lasts only five seconds.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And the same call is recorded in the general French
10 documents. We have three more entries for it. Now,
11 could you just explain those to us? The second line
12 appears to be Rat to Odekerken, and this time somebody
13 is located in A.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that Rat or Odekerken?
18 A. We believe that is meant to be Odekerken, from our
19 analysis of the French attributation and how they have
20 done their columns on the 90-page document, so again
21 that would appear to be wrong.
22 Q. Because the next two entries which relate to the same
23 call have him in C, which would be the area they have
24 attributed to the Place de la Concorde.
25 A. Yes.

158
1 Q. So there is an example, if I have understood it
2 correctly, where the French documents dealing with one
3 call put the same person in two quite different places.
4 A. Yes, they do.
5 Q. Call 16 is another call from Rat to Odekerken. It is
6 very shortly after the other one. So, we have
7 a 5-second call, then he calls back. Would an obvious
8 inference to be drawn from that be that the call was
9 cut-off for some reason?
10 A. Yes, it may have been. You can imagine that these cells
11 may have been congested around this time, depending how
12 close we are getting to the time of the crash.
13 Q. Then we have at call 17 Rat calling Odekerken, is that
14 right?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. This one is a 10-second call and Odekerken is at 60153.
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Now, we don't know where that is, do we?
19 A. No, we don't.
20 Q. Call 18 is Serge Arnal at 23 minutes. He appears to
21 call -- do you know what 12 is, renseignements
22 telephoniques?
23 A. We believe 12 turned about to be telephone information
24 or directory inquiries, depending on the translation.
25 Q. Do you know what 112 is?

159
1 A. 112 is the emergency services.
2 Q. We will hear the statements of the paparazzi next week,
3 but there we have a call at 23, apparently directed
4 towards the telephone company rather than anyone else.
5 And it is at about 23 that the crash occurs.
6 Call 1, M Guizard phoning Agence Angeli and he is
7 located in the A area.
8 A. Yes, indeed.
9 Q. If we can go to the next Odekerken and Chassery call,
10 this is call 20. It is an outgoing call, this time from
11 Mr Odekerken --
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. -- to Chassery. The call number is 07503, the cell site
14 number.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. That again is not one that you have drawn on the plan
17 that is on the screen behind you.
18 A. No, it is not. We had no information of the coverage of
19 that.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There is no question of it being
21 mistaken with 27503, is there, which is on the tunnel?
22 A. May I go through the logic of this?
23 MR BURNETT: We will come to this, sir.
24 We will see as we go on that there are a lot of
25 calls made from 07503 at a time after the crash when, as

160
1 the jury will hear and they have heard evidence already,
2 it might reasonably thought that one or both of them
3 were in or very near the tunnel.
4 A. Yes, indeed.
5 Q. The same thought about a typographical error went
6 through my mind and I know Mr Croxford's, because
7 we talked about it a couple of days ago.
8 But you try to explain to us how this is likely to
9 have happened.
10 If we look again at MAS0009, which is the one on the
11 screen, and perhaps do it by reference to the various
12 cell site coverage boxes that end 563, now, Mr Stokes,
13 the green one, your ordinary green one is 07563.
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. The light green one is 17563 and the dark green one is
16 27563.
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Without troubling you to blind us with science, is it
19 right that many cell sites have three separate vectors,
20 essentially, that operate from a single site or mast?
21 A. We come back to this confusing word. In cell site terms
22 "sectors", and they normally have a northerly facing
23 sector, and each sector is associated with an aerial, so
24 there is an area of coverage going north, east and west.
25 In general terms. The reason for that is so that they

161
1 can adjust the coverage for the buildings and topography
2 to make sure that certain parts are covered.
3 Q. All right. We can see that the three that end 563 cover
4 quite a large area.
5 If we could go across a little bit, Mr Foley, we see
6 the blue right on top of the Alma Tunnel is 27503.
7 Would the logic of what one sees in respect of those
8 that end 563 lead you to conclude that 07503 is likely
9 to be immediately to the north of the blue box?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And 17503, even though I don't think we have any calls
12 from it --
13 A. No, we don't.
14 Q. -- is likely to fill up the gap between the blue and
15 the dark green?
16 A. That is it.
17 Q. Roughly.
18 A. If you follow the logic through, I believe the 07503
19 sector would be to the north of that small blue
20 triangle.
21 Q. Is it right that we must always bear in mind that
22 the boxes that we see there are not fixed with
23 boundaries that abut up to the next area. They overlap
24 and there is an elasticity around the edges?
25 A. Yes. The coverage would form around the topography,

162
1 around the buildings and the land mass around it.
2 Q. So, 07503, in your view, is likely to be near
3 the tunnel?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Go back, if we could, to call 20. It would appear, if
6 that is right -- this is the second page of the chart,
7 ladies and gentlemen. It would appear, if that is
8 right, that David Odekerken made an outgoing call from
9 somewhere near the tunnel --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- at 24.05. And that Chassery was in a different cell
12 site coverage, 17527, and we don't know where that is.
13 A. No. But again, there is the River Seine going through
14 the middle of this and to put this in perspective, if
15 you were standing anywhere along the north side of the
16 Seine, you could be connecting to cells on the other
17 side. So that cell could be anywhere.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Did the French records simply
19 cover paparazzi, or anybody else?
20 A. The 90-page document, sir, covers all the phones which
21 they appear to have identified cells along the route.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I mean, for example, I don't know
23 if in your researches you were able to identify
24 the phone call from the off-duty doctor who was very
25 early on the scene, who telephoned the SAMU

163
1 headquarters?
2 A. I was not specifically asked for that number, but if
3 it is a mobile number --
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I'm not sure that we even have
5 it.
6 MR CROXFORD: Sir, we have some evidence, you may remember
7 it, Miss Samer gave some evidence that she made a call
8 and certainly we have 00.25.09, a call to Appels
9 d'Urgence by Amel Samer.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It's probably of no particular
11 relevance but it would be interesting to see how they
12 fitted in with all of these places.
13 MR BURNETT: Sir, to save Mr Stokes turning up
14 the 90 pages --
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Particularly at 20 to 5.
16 MR BURNETT: Yes.
17 The call that my learned friend Mr Croxford has just
18 identified, at 00.25.09, is located within area A for
19 Alma by the French, and it is to 112, which was why
20 I asked you about the emergency number.
21 A. I was just going to clarify the 90-page document.
22 The 90-page document would appear, from what we can
23 understand, to be every mobile phone that the French
24 police believed was at or near the route of the Mercedes
25 between midnight and 1 o'clock.

164
1 Q. They have tried to get as much data as they could in
2 respect of every call made or received anywhere near
3 these relevant areas between those hours.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That is why there is 90 pages with about 20 per page.
6 A. This would be anyone who happened to have a mobile phone
7 making a call between midnight and 1 o'clock that was in
8 that area.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I suppose it is an obvious
10 question, but has somebody checked the mobiles that were
11 recovered from the Mercedes?
12 MR BURNETT: It is an obvious question, to which I do not
13 know the answer from this document. But we have call
14 data in respect of Henri Paul's phone.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
16 MR BURNETT: We have no data in respect of Trevor Rees'
17 phone, if you remember, sir. But we do have some data,
18 which I will come to but we are not going to deal with
19 today, concerning calls by British mobiles or to British
20 numbers. But I need to think about that to see whether
21 we have covered that particular base.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sorry, I put you on the spot.
23 MR BURNETT: Please don't worry. I think for all of us it
24 has been quite an exercise to get our heads round those
25 90 pages.

165
1 A. Yes, indeed.
2 Q. We got to call 20 and we think that Mr Odekerken is at
3 or near the tunnel by that stage. We are not sure where
4 Mr Chassery was but he would appear to be in a different
5 cell site covered area.
6 A. Yes, indeed.
7 Q. Although there could be overlap.
8 A. Yes, and that site could be very near there as well.
9 Q. If we turn the page, there is a call at number 23 which
10 appears to be an outgoing from Chassery to Odekerken,
11 but in respect of which we don't appear to have
12 the detailed call data record. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes. No, it didn't appear on the call data, although it
14 appears in the cell dumps.
15 One explanation for this may be that it was an
16 unconnected call, ie the number was dialled so
17 the network knows who dialled the number, they know who
18 they were dialling but the call did not actually connect
19 so no call data record was actually produced for that
20 call. That may be an explanation for that, because
21 we have no durations on the French document either.
22 Q. Then call 26 is an outgoing from Chassery to Odekerken.
23 Odekerken still in 07503, Chassery in 60155, which is
24 a different cell site number from where he was on
25 the call we looked at at call 20.

166
1 A. That is correct, yes.
2 Q. So would it be a reasonable inference that he, in
3 general terms, is on the move at this stage?
4 A. Yes, it would be a general inference, yes.
5 Q. I appreciate you would not wish to suggest that anyone
6 relies on these sorts of inferences alone.
7 A. No.
8 Q. That is call 26. If we then go to call 30, it is an
9 outgoing call from Mr Chassery. He has now got to
10 07503. We see that?
11 A. Yes, indeed.
12 Q. So if we are right that that covers or is close to
13 the tunnel, he is now there as well as Odekerken?
14 A. Yes, indeed.
15 Q. And this is an outgoing call that was referred to in
16 evidence by Mr Sola this morning. The number that you
17 see for the B party is in fact Laurent Sola's mobile.
18 It may be helpful if anyone who has a pen handy
19 wrote in "Laurent Sola" there as the subscriber for B.
20 There is not too much more of this. The next page,
21 call 32, an incoming call to Mr Chassery. That is
22 right, isn't it?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. This is a call again that we heard about this morning
25 and saw the number on the screen from Mr Sola's

167
1 landline. So, again, if one writes in "from Sola"
2 there, it fills in what would otherwise be a blank.
3 Call 34, again, just to locate this in time, we are
4 now at 00.36.01 and this is another one from Mr Sola,
5 and we saw his phone records this morning. So, might
6 I suggest that everyone writes in "from Sola" there?
7 Call 36, we are now at 00.38.02, Chassery outgoing
8 and this again is to Laurent Sola?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. This is the long call that Mr Sola talked to the jury
11 about this morning. One sees it lasts 639 seconds so
12 something well over 10 minutes, and just short of 11?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Calls 37 and 39 are calls by Mr Rat. We have not seen
15 anything from him for some time, not since he was having
16 a series of calls to and from Mr Odekerken at some point
17 between the parties leaving the back of the Ritz and
18 the crash?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Here, we see him in call 37, it would appear, receiving
21 a call on his mobile from what may be his home phone?
22 A. Yes, indeed.
23 Q. And at 00.40.51, call 39, he appears to be calling
24 Gamma, which is the agency?
25 A. Yes, indeed.

168
1 Q. And you will probably know, Mr Stokes, that it was at
2 about this time, 00.40, that the paparazzi who were
3 still at the scene were collected up by the French
4 police and taken into custody?
5 A. Yes indeed.
6 Q. So, that is call 39. Call 40, if we can now quickly
7 follow through Chassery and Odekerken because the other
8 paparazzi that we are interested in, many of them are
9 taken into custody.
10 We are now 00.44.45, an outgoing call from Chassery.
11 He still appears, doesn't he, to be somewhere close to
12 the tunnel?
13 A. Yes, he does.
14 Q. Even though we know he was not taken into custody and
15 that he got away with his photographs. That is a call
16 to Odekerken who is at 07549. We don't know where that
17 one is, do we?
18 A. Not all, no.
19 Q. Call 41 is an outgoing call from Chassery to a number.
20 I am bound to say I have not identified who that number
21 is. I don't know whether you know?
22 A. I do not, no.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It looks like a landline again.
24 A. It is a landline, sir, yes.
25 MR BURNETT: But by this stage, he has moved to 17563, so he

169
1 has moved away from the tunnel and 17563 is one which is
2 on your chart, isn't it?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. I hope I have this right, it is the light green one.
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. I think we can see it on the screen behind you.
7 A. Yes. You will see call 41 marked there.
8 Q. It would seem that Mr Chassery by this stage has moved
9 quite a long way to the east of the crash?
10 A. It would tend to indicate that, yes.
11 Q. Then the last ones: 44, an outgoing call from
12 Mr Odekerken to Mr Chassery, 17565.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, that is not on your chart, is it?
15 A. No, it is not.
16 Q. It is to Mr Chassery, and this is something I would
17 welcome your comment on, who now appears to be routing
18 through 07503 again.
19 A. Yes, he does.
20 Q. Now, does that mean that he has necessarily gone back
21 towards the tunnel, or could it just as easily be an
22 example of how imprecise all of this might be?
23 A. If you look at the next piece of information on call
24 44 -- (mobile phone interruption)
25 I do not think that is appropriate.

170
1 MR BURNETT: Sir, I should say that I particularly asked
2 Miss Saleh to ensure that we had a demonstration of the
3 use of a cellphone at precisely 8 minutes to 5.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: As one of my colleagues remarked
5 recently, they are not called cellphones by chance.
6 MR CROXFORD: Can we pass that on to Mr Pannick, please?
7 MR BURNETT: Sorry. We were interrupted when I was simply
8 asking you to explain how the 07503 entry might be
9 reconciled with the one that we just looked at in
10 call 41.
11 A. Yes, again, it could be to the centre of that site, but
12 also, if you look at the line below it dealing with call
13 44 again, Chassery appears to be on cell 07536.
14 Q. So could that simply mean that he was on the move when
15 this call was --
16 A. It would tend to indicate that he is somewhere to
17 the north between those two areas, if you can imagine
18 the 07503 having a sector to the north of the blue
19 triangle and then we have the 07536 to the right -- no,
20 it is 36, I do apologise. Take all that back. I am
21 confusing everyone and myself.
22 It is one where 07536 has not been identified.
23 It is 563. So, that again, could be yes, a cell
24 somewhere else that we don't know the location of.
25 Q. But he would appear at this stage in general terms to be

171
1 on the move?
2 A. Yes, indeed.
3 Q. And then the final one we look at is number 45. This is
4 an incoming call to Mr Odekerken, from a landline which
5 I do not think we have identified, who by this stage is
6 at 37583, wherever that might be?
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Where have we got to timewise?
8 It is 4.55 and we have been going longer than an hour.
9 MR BURNETT: I am not sure how much Mr Croxford has.
10 MR CROXFORD: About ten or 15 minutes, sir.
11 MR BURNETT: I have one more question.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, Mr Stokes has to come back
13 anyway.
14 MR BURNETT: He has to come back to deal with the British
15 numbers at the beginning of the week after next.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think he should come back.
17 MR BURNETT: Shall I ask my question?
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You can ask your question.
19 MR BURNETT: You made a statement, Mr Stokes, on 3rd March
20 2008 and you have that in front of you.
21 In paragraph 3.1 you list a large number of
22 telephone numbers that you were on the lookout for and
23 that included telephone numbers for James Andanson, his
24 wife and son and also somebody called Jason John Fraser.
25 Am I right in thinking that there were no mobile

172
1 telephone calls recorded in the French documents from
2 their mobile telephones?
3 A. That is correct. There were no mobile telephones from
4 there.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, now which day is Mr Stokes
6 coming back on, Monday week, and we will just have to
7 fit him in?
8 MR BURNETT: Sir, the need for Mr Stokes to come back only
9 became apparent this morning. I know that my learned
10 friend Mr Mansfield has some questions to ask him, in
11 particular about the British-related calls that one sees
12 in the documents.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Monday week and Tuesday week are
14 the two options?
15 A. Yes. Without looking at my diary, which is a mobile
16 phone, which I cannot switch on...
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Shall we sort this out and out of
18 court?
19 MR BURNETT: It may be best, sir.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Tomorrow, it is a 9.30 start,
21 isn't it, with the videolink?
22 MR BURNETT: Yes.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: 9.30 tomorrow, please, members of
24 the jury. Thank you for sitting late.
25 (5.00 pm)

173
  
1 (The hearing was adjourned until 9.30 am
2 on Friday 7th March 2008)
3

174
  
1 INDEX
2
3 Statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read) .............. 1
4
5 Transcript of conversation between ............... 5
6 MR PAUL BURRELL and 'CONTACT'
7 (read)
8
9 Statement of MR PAUL BURRELL (read) .............. 15
10
11 MR LAURENT SOLA (sworn) .......................... 19
12
13 Questions from MR HILLIARD ................ 19
14
15 Questions from MR KEEN .................... 29
16
17 Questions from MR CROXFORD ................ 32
18
19 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 68
20
21 Further questions from MR HILLIARD ........ 71
22
23 PROFESSOR ROY JAMES GREEN (sworn) ............... 72
24
25 Questions from MR HILLIARD ................ 72

175
1
2 Questions from MR KEEN .................... 80
3
4 Questions from MR MACLEOD ................. 89
5
6 Further questions from MR HILLIARD ........ 96
7
8 PROFESSOR ALLAN JAMIESON (sworn) ................. 97
9
10 Questions from MR HILLIARD ................ 97
11
12 Questions from MR KEEN .................... 101
13
14 Questions from MR MACLEOD ................. 109
15
16 MR MARK ADRIAN STOKES (sworn) .................... 131
17
18 Questions from MR BURNETT ................. 131
19


176

<< Back