Hearing transcripts

7 March 2008 - Afternoon session

24 (1.30 pm)
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have Mr Lefort there, have we?

81

1 Can you hear us?
2 A. Yes.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
4 MR HOUGH: Could the witness please be sworn.
5 MR BERNARD LEFORT (sworn)
6 (evidence via videolink, interpreted)
7 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Before we start, can I say that
8 we are not getting very clear sound from London, so
9 it is very difficult at this end.
10 Questions from MR HOUGH
11 MR HOUGH: Is your name Bernard Lefort?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Are you hearing me any better now?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. It is just that there is an echo.
15 When we speak, we can hear ourselves. It is still
16 the case, actually.
17 MR HOUGH: Would you like us to continue or shall we redial?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Redial, maybe.
19 MR HOUGH: Very well. (Pause). Is your full name Bernard
20 Lefort? Can you hear us now?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In 1997, I think you were a waiter at the bar
23 Le Bourgogne in Central Paris?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I do not know if you are aware of this, but that bar

82

1 was just downstairs from where Henri Paul lived.
2 A. Well, according to what I know, he was living a little
3 bit further down the street or up the street, but not in
4 the same building.
5 Q. But a few doors down then?
6 A. Yes, I became aware of it when I saw the police come
7 some days later.
8 Q. And I think the police came and took a statement from
9 you on 5th September, so about five days after
10 the crash?
11 A. Yes. That is correct.
12 Q. And do you have a copy of the statement you made with
13 you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Have you ever given any other interview to anybody,
16 official or unofficial?
17 A. No, no. No, journalists asked me questions but I said
18 that I did not know what they wanted from me and I could
19 not understand their attitude.
20 Q. We will come to one particular group of journalists in
21 a few minutes. Am I fair to say that you have never
22 received, and you are not expecting to receive, any
23 payment for your account of events?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Now, dealing with some background, I think your half

83

1 sister is Myriam Lemaire, somebody we hope to hear from
2 a little later.
3 A. Myriam Lemaire.
4 Q. I think I might have said Lefaire by accident.
5 I think she owned the bar in 1997; is that right?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And I think you began working in the bar on 15th August,
8 about two weeks before the crash?
9 A. I do not remember exactly.
10 Q. Well, if you see in your statement, you say that it was
11 since 15th August, you thought at the time.
12 A. Yes, but I do not remember exactly now. It was a time
13 of holiday in Paris.
14 Q. During the time that you were there, I think you
15 normally worked from lunchtime until 8 o'clock in
16 the evening, but you sometimes worked later?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And I think M Paul was a regular customer of the bar?
19 A. Well, you know, people have been talking to me about it
20 for so long now, but it is not someone that I saw every
21 day. I saw from time to time.
22 Q. In your statement, you are recorded as saying that you
23 saw him three times in the period which we think is
24 perhaps the two weeks that you were working in the bar?
25 A. Yes, I remember once he got in the bar after having

84

1 played tennis.
2 Q. In your statement, you record one occasion when he came
3 in at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon for a sandwich
4 and a soft drink and another occasion on the evening of
5 Friday 29th August, when he came in in the early evening
6 for a drink?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you think that is right, do you?
9 A. Yes, well the only times I saw him, he was very quiet,
10 reading his newspaper on his own.
11 Q. When you saw him, was he drinking alcohol on those
12 occasions?
13 A. No, I did not see him drink alcohol. Maybe once
14 a panache, that is beer with lemonade but that is it.
15 Q. Did you ever speak to him, other than to exchange
16 pleasantries and take his order?
17 A. No, because he would always sit at the corner of the bar
18 reading his newspaper.
19 Q. Turning to Saturday 30th August, the day immediately
20 preceding the crash, were you working on that Saturday?
21 A. Normally I would have worked, yes.
22 Q. You are recorded in your statement saying that you
23 worked that day from 12.30, so lunchtime, until
24 11.00 pm, so working a little later than you often
25 worked. It is the last paragraph on the first page if

85

1 you want to look at it.
2 A. Yes, I can see it.
3 Q. And having looked at that statement, which you signed,
4 is that likely to be right that you were working for
5 that period that day?
6 A. Yes, yes, it is written in the statement. Yes.
7 Q. And that records that you worked behind the bar
8 the whole time apart from half an hour at 4 o'clock when
9 you went to do some shopping?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And was anybody working with you over that period?
12 A. Well, my sister.
13 Q. She has given a statement that she worked from 11.00 am
14 to 1.00 am, so a perhaps a little later than you but it
15 may not matter. You think that is right, do you?
16 A. Yes. She surely must have closed the bar.
17 Q. Just very briefly for us, can you describe what the bar
18 was like; how big it was, bar seats and tables, that
19 kind of thing?
20 A. Well, it was a rectangular room with three corners and
21 a bar all along the rest of the room and on the other
22 side were tables.
23 Q. How many tables, roughly?
24 A. Well, five to six, maybe in front of the bar and then in
25 the back were three or four.

86

1 Q. How busy did it get on an average evening?
2 A. Well, in the evening it was a little bit busier. At
3 lunchtime, you know, people came to have lunch but in
4 the evening, yes, people came to have a drink. There
5 were more people in the evening.
6 Q. On the Saturday, 30th August, when you were working
7 there, can you recall having seen Henri Paul at any
8 time?
9 A. Maybe I did, but I cannot remember.
10 Q. Can you look at your statement, it is towards the bottom
11 of the first page. You say there that you did not see
12 M Paul that day, and that if he had been in the bar, you
13 think you would have seen him. Does that help to jog
14 your memory?
15 A. Yes, if that is in, maybe I would have remembered but
16 I do not remember.
17 Q. I appreciate you may not remember now, but in
18 a statement signed by you just five days later, you say
19 that you did not see Mr Paul there and you think that
20 you would have seen him had he come in over that period.
21 Is that likely to be right?
22 A. I do not remember now. It was ten years ago but if
23 I said that at the time to a police officer, it must
24 have been true.
25 Q. One other matter, and this is dealt with on the second

87

1 page of your statement and it is the very last paragraph
2 of the statement: you told the French police that two
3 journalists who you believed were English had visited
4 the bar on the day before you gave the statement, so
5 4th September.
6 A. Yes, as a matter of fact.
7 Q. And you are recorded as --
8 A. Yes, it was in the days after the crash.
9 Q. And you are recorded in the statement as saying to
10 the French police that one of the English journalists,
11 or one of the journalists with an English accent, said
12 to you that if you told them that Henri Paul had drunk
13 two whiskies, he would give you whatever you wanted?
14 A. Yes, as a matter of fact, yes. I have seen other
15 journalists, plenty of journalists.
16 Q. But I think you were not prepared to tell that lie at
17 all, were you?
18 A. No.
19 MR HOUGH: Thank you very much, those are my questions.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
21 MR MANSFIELD: No thank you.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?
23 MR KEEN: Thank you, sir.
24 Questions from MR KEEN
25 MR KEEN: Mr Lefort, my name is Richard Keen and I appear on

88

1 behalf of the parents of the late Henri Paul.
2 I just wanted to clarify one or two points in your
3 evidence, if I may.
4 We have a statement or deposition which you gave to
5 the Brigade Criminelle in Paris on 5th September 1997.
6 Is that the deposition that you have in front of you?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. And would it be fair to say that your recollection of
9 events on 31st August 1997 was better on
10 5th September 1997, when you gave this deposition, than
11 it is perhaps now, ten years later?
12 A. Yes, of course.
13 Q. And is it also fair to say that you answered the police
14 questions and enquiries honestly?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I think we know already that the police had carried
17 out neighbourhood enquiries and spoken to your sister
18 who I understand was the owner of the bar where you were
19 working as head waiter; is that right?
20 A. That is right.
21 Q. And you told the French police that Henri Paul was
22 someone who occasionally came to the Bar de Bourgogne?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if we look to what you actually told the police, if
25 you look to the bottom of the first page of your

89

1 deposition, you said:
2 "Since 15th August, I think I have seen M Paul about
3 three times; once during the week he came in at around
4 2.00 pm and had a sandwich and an Orangina.
5 "On Friday 29th August, he came in and had
6 a shandy", a panache, and then you say:
7 "I do not recall the first occasion", and you add:
8 "Whenever I saw him, he was alone. I have never
9 served alcohol to him. I did not see M Paul on Saturday
10 30th August throughout the entire day. I worked from
11 12.30 until 11.00 pm. I was away from around 4 to
12 4.30 pm to do a bit of shopping. I was behind the bar
13 the whole time. If M Paul had come in, there is no way
14 I would not have seen him. The bar is small."
15 A. Yes, as a matter of fact, yes.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, coming on to events after the crash,
17 did you find a large number of people coming in into the
18 bar who appeared to be journalists inquiring about
19 Henri Paul?
20 A. Yes. A lot of them.
21 Q. And you mentioned to the French police that on
22 4th September 1997, at around 8.00 pm, two journalists
23 who you believed by their accent to be English, came
24 into the bar.
25 A. Yes.

90

1 Q. Did these people say they were journalists, or did you
2 just assume because of the questions that they were
3 asking that they must be journalists?
4 A. No. I remember they submitted me some kind of press
5 cards.
6 Q. Thank you. One of them then said to you, and you quote
7 in your police statement:
8 "Tell me that he drank two whiskies and I will give
9 you whatever you want".
10 A. Yes, he offered me something.
11 Q. And as you told the previous lawyer, Mr Hough, you
12 refused to tell such a lie?
13 A. Yes, and I even called the police at the time to tell
14 the police officer about it.
15 Q. Did these people explain to you why they wanted you to
16 tell lies about Henri Paul drinking?
17 A. No. Not at all.
18 MR KEEN: Very well.
19 Thank you. No further questions, sir.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford?
21 MR CROXFORD: No thank you, sir.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell?
23 Questions from MR HORWELL
24 MR HORWELL: Mr Lefort, I only have a very few questions for
25 you. Do you now have a recollection of Saturday 30th

91

1 August 1997?
2 A. No and also, you know, after hearing so many times about
3 it, and for so long, you don't know what is what any
4 more.
5 Q. We have heard from a witness who says that he saw
6 Henri Paul in the bar that Saturday night at about 8.25
7 in the evening.
8 A. Maybe.
9 MR HORWELL: Thank you.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr Lefort,
11 that is all we require. We are grateful to you for
12 coming and giving your time. Thank you. So --
13 MR HOUGH: That is the end of the videolink statement from
14 France. There are some statements that can be read and
15 in particular, one that probably ought to be read.
16 There are four statements in turn and I will deal
17 with each of them one by one and see whether there is
18 time and inclination for them to be read. The first is
19 a statement from Martin Smith and relates to the proving
20 of Channel 4 material.
21 Statement of MR MARTIN SMITH (read)
22 This is a largely administrative matter to enable
23 some of this material to be read next week:
24 "I Martin Smith, solicitor to the inquest, make the
25 following statement:

92

1 "I am a partner in the Regulatory Law Group at Field
2 Fisher Waterhouse LLP and am currently engaged as
3 solicitor to these inquests. My appointment though to
4 that position was announced on 5th June 2007.
5 "On 6th June 2007, Channel 4 Television Corporation
6 broadcast a documentary made by ITN Factual entitled
7 'Diana, the Witnesses in the Tunnel'.
8 "On 18th June 2007, I received a letter from
9 Mr Hall, partner of Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP who
10 represent the Ritz Hotel, Paris. In his letter, Mr Hall
11 asked the Coroner to 'use his powers to require
12 Channel 4 (and/or their servants or agents)' to provide
13 him and the Interested Persons to these inquests with
14 various materials.
15 "On 22nd June 2007, I sent a letter addressed to
16 Channel 4's Head of Legal Affairs making a request for
17 various materials including unseen footage of interviews
18 with relevant witnesses, tape-recordings of interviews
19 with relevant witnesses and all witness evidence
20 relating to the same.
21 "I corresponded with Channel 4 and its solicitors,
22 Simons, Muirhead and Burton ('SMAB') over the course of
23 last summer. On 5th October 2007, I wrote to SMAB
24 asking them to provide all unbroadcast evidential
25 material.

93

1 "SMAB replied the same day, expressing surprise at
2 my request and essentially refusing to provide the
3 material in question without being ordered by the court
4 to do so.
5 "On 15th October 2007, I filed an application in
6 the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
7 representing an order requiring production of certain
8 documentation. This application was heard in two parts
9 by Mr Justice Eady at hearings on 19th October and
10 26th October 2007 and resulted in the two orders annexed
11 at exhibit MLS1.
12 "Pursuant to this application, SMAB provided me with
13 the following material on the dates indicated. I also
14 set out the reference number assigned by the inquest to
15 each of these materials which I now produce to
16 the court.
17 "Provided by SMAB on 19th October 2007:
18 "Footage and transcripts of the following
19 interviews."
20 And then there is a series of interviews with Kenny
21 Lennox, Laurent Sola, Lionel Cherruault, Mark Butt,
22 Martine Monteil, Phil Hall, Pierre Hounsfield, Pierre
23 Suu, Sebastien Masseron, Nikola Arsov, Jacques Langevin,
24 Frederic Mailliez.
25 "Provided by SMAB on 24th October 2007:

94

1 "Footage and transcripts of the following
2 interviews: Greg Allen-Waters, Mr Bourdon, Remy and
3 Koblenz(?).
4 "Provided by SMAB on 29th October 2007:
5 "Notes of accounts of Paul Martin, Gary Dean,
6 Laurent Sola, Phil Hall, Lionel Cherruault, Serge
7 Benhamou, Clarence Williams, Jacques Langevin,
8 Nikola Arsov, Dr Frederic Mailliez, Remy Gaston Dreyfus,
9 Ken Lennox, Serge Arnal, Fabrice Chassery,
10 Michel Dufour."
11 "Provided by SMAB on 30th October 2007:
12 "Handwritten note made by Janice Sutherland of
13 interview with Serge Benhamou.
14 "Provided by SMAB on 1st November 2007:
15 "Extracts from journalists' notebooks containing
16 accounts of Stanley Culbreath, Clarence Williams, Pierre
17 Suu, Laurent Sola, Ken Lennox, Serge Arnal.
18 "I disclosed all of this material to the interested
19 persons shortly after it was received, after it had been
20 reviewed to take account of considerations of
21 relevance."
22 And Mr Smith says:
23 "I believe the facts stated in this statement are
24 true."
25

95

1 Statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read)
2
3 The next statement is a statement of Tom Foley
4 adducing a one-page set of responses to questions by
5 Mr Tomlinson. Mr Foley's statement reads as follows:
6 "I Tom Foley, Legal Secretary to the inquests, make
7 the following statement:
8 "When Richard Tomlinson gave evidence on
9 13th February 2008, Mr Mansfield asked whether he might
10 be shown the name of the person who was referred to in
11 Witness A's proposal. It did not prove possible to
12 provide this information to Mr Tomlinson on that day.
13 "The solicitor to the inquests, Martin Smith, met
14 Mr Tomlinson on 27th February 2008 to communicate
15 the name in question to him and ask him three questions
16 about it. A document outlining these questions and
17 Mr Tomlinson's responses to them is exhibited to this
18 statement."
19 I go to that document "Questions for Richard
20 Tomlinson":
21 "Question: [There is a redacted word] is the name
22 of the person who Witness A says was the subject of his
23 assassination proposal (about Milosevic)?
24 "Answer: I do not recognise this name at all.
25 "Question: Do you think it is possible that this

96

1 may in fact have been the name involved?
2 "Answer: It could be, it is over 16 years ago,
3 I have no positive recollection or negative
4 recollection.
5 "Question: Is there any comment you want to make
6 about the name?
7 "Answer: Simply that I do not recognise this name
8 at all.
9 "Question: Could you have confused the two names?
10 If so, how?
11 "Answer: In 1992 I would not have confused
12 the names but in the passage of time, I cannot say one
13 way or another."
14 That page is signed by Mr Tomlinson and dated 27th
15 February 2008. Mr Foley's statement concludes:
16 "I believe the facts stated in this statement are
17 true."
18 That is Mr Foley's statement.
19 The third statement to be read is that of Didier
20 Georges Gamblin, and this is a statement which is being
21 read as uncontroversial.
22 Statement of DIDIER GAMBLIN (read)
23 It is for reference purposes [INQ0007081 - read out in court] and it
24 takes the form of a report by Police Lieutenant Gigou
25 dated 3rd October 1997, timed at 17.00 hours. It begins

97

1 with personal particulars, the name Didier Georges
2 Gamblin, Fire Safety Officer at the Ritz Hotel and he
3 provides personal details.
4 Then as to the facts, he says this:
5 "I understand that I am being interviewed as
6 a witness under Letter Rogatory."
7 And he gives the details of that, which the jury has
8 heard before and he says:
9 "The names of the people under investigation" that
10 is the paparazzi "are not familiar to me.
11 "If they are paparazzi, I must know some by sight
12 because I saw some when I was in Rue Arsene Houssaye on
13 30th August 1997. In fact, I will tell you what
14 happened on 30th August 1997. On 30th August 1997,
15 I started work at 2 pm on Mr Paul's instructions. That
16 had been agreed since the previous Thursday and
17 confirmed on Friday 29th August 1997. I was supposed to
18 be at the entrance to the building at 1 Rue Arsene
19 Houssaye in the lobby near the concierge's room. My job
20 was to make sure that when they arrived, the Princess
21 and Dodi did not have any problems with the paparazzi,
22 knowing that they had been followed by them for quite
23 a while. Then we were to help them in and out of the
24 building if necessary. I was with my colleague
25 Gerald Gueheneux.

98

1 "In answer to this question, I have done this kind
2 of thing before, especially at the Neuilly house when
3 the Al Fayed family needed protection. It is true that
4 it is not my normal job but we were some distance away
5 from the people to be protected because their bodyguards
6 were closer to them. I was not given any particular
7 instructions on 30th August 1997. We were just supposed
8 to ensure the paparazzi did not come too close to
9 the couple or be too intrusive.
10 "The couple arrived at about 7.15 in the evening.
11 My colleague and I had been told by M Paul that the car
12 was leaving the Ritz to go to the flat but when they
13 were approaching, we were not warned that they were
14 about to arrive, as sometimes happens. When the two
15 cars arrived, the Mercedes and then the Range Rover,
16 there were about ten photographers following them. They
17 were on motorbikes and scooters but there was a car as
18 well. It could have been a white 205.
19 "When the couple came down, the photographers rushed
20 towards them. My colleague had to intervene and push
21 them back a bit. There was a slight incident at that
22 point, because my colleague must have got hold of a lens
23 to push the group back. That annoyed the photographers.
24 No blows were exchanged, the photographers just told us
25 not to give them a hard time or they would call more

99

1 photographers and let the English know and then we would
2 have another 20 photographers on our backs. They made
3 those kind of threats to us.
4 "I asked them to calm down and so did my colleague.
5 Gerald and I went into the building. I phoned Mr Paul
6 to ask if we were just supposed to protect the couple of
7 if we should also stop the photographers taking any
8 pictures. Mr Paul said we should just protect them and
9 let the photographers take pictures, as long as
10 the paparazzi did not come near the cars and stayed at
11 the end of the street.
12 "So I went out and explained to the paparazzi that
13 with the equipment they had, they could take photos from
14 a bit further away to leave the couple enough room when
15 they came out again. I asked them to keep quiet and
16 calm and stay about 10 metres away but if there were any
17 further incidents, we would have to do something.
18 "The journalists took it in good part and we came to
19 an agreement. In answer to your question, the English
20 bodyguards did not have to intervene during the incident
21 I mentioned to you. They protected the couple. It was
22 our job to keep the journalists back.
23 "To answer your question, the Princess and Dodi
24 never at any point asked us to apologise to
25 the paparazzi. I think they must have seen that we had

100

1 to push the journalists back but they did not worry
2 about it. It was really nothing to make a fuss about.
3 It was the journalists who got in a state, not us.
4 "From the little I saw of the couple, they did not
5 seem to be annoyed by the journalists. I felt that they
6 had had enough of it and didn't want them to show
7 themselves. I would describe the journalists involved
8 in the incident as follows:
9 "A European man about 45 years of age wearing jeans,
10 a shirt and a bomber jacket, I think, who must have been
11 on a scooter, I think. Greying hair, fairly long, who
12 has a limp and is well-known in paparazzi circles. That
13 was the man who threatened to call in his English
14 colleagues and he was the one I went to talk to and come
15 to an arrangement with. I would be able to recognise
16 him. In any case, I think from the stories going round
17 afterwards, that you [the police] took him in for
18 questioning.
19 "The one whose lens my colleague touched is a man
20 with slightly darkish complexion, but European, younger,
21 taller, with brown hair, well-built, wearing jeans and
22 a shirt, brownish and maybe a bomber jacket. He was
23 aggressive and he himself admitted that he had flown off
24 the handle a bit without being provoked.
25 "I would be able to recognise him. If I saw

101

1 the photographers who were outside the building again,
2 I would be able to recognise some of them.
3 "In particular, there was a short fat man with curly
4 hair and glasses and he was very aggressive too. He did
5 not like it when they were asked to move back a bit.
6 Like some of the others, he thought that when they were
7 moving back, they were being told not to take photos.
8 I would recognise him.
9 "There was a man without a camera who was acting as
10 lookout outside the building to see when the couple were
11 leaving. He had brown hair, he was younger with a
12 thinnish face, aged about 20 to 25. He realised I had
13 seen him. I would recognise him.
14 "The paparazzi did not cause any trouble while they
15 were waiting. They waited around the building and did
16 not come too close. They had spotted the cars.
17 "Mr Paul had rung me to say that the couple were due
18 to come out at 9.00 pm but it took longer. Mr Paul told
19 me that he was going to leave the hotel. The call was
20 made at around 7.30. Mr Paul had come to the end of his
21 day and he was going home. He told me that in so many
22 words. He also said that my job would be finished when
23 the couple left the flat to go to a Paris restaurant,
24 le Benoit. That is what had been arranged.
25 "My colleague Gerald was due to stay over for the

102

1 night because he was on night duty and I was coming back
2 at about 8 o'clock the following morning, 31st
3 August 1997, to work the Sunday with Gerald. Gerald was
4 due to finish at about 9.30 on the morning of 31st
5 August 1997.
6 "Mr Paul would definitely have come and joined me in
7 Rue Arsene Houssaye at about 8 o'clock, as he had told
8 me. We were going to look after the couple in
9 the daytime on Sunday and when they left the flat.
10 "The couple came out at about 9.45 in the evening.
11 Although we had come to an agreement with the paparazzi,
12 they did not do what we asked them. They came closer to
13 the car than expected. Although they didn't rush
14 forward as they had done when the couple arrived. When
15 the couple's car drove off, they went completely crazy.
16 They called their motorbikes and set off like lunatics
17 to follow the car. They could have knocked pedestrians
18 over on the pavement. People had to press themselves
19 against the wall to let the paparazzi's motorbikes past.
20 They were driving on the pavement.
21 "I went away at about 10.30 and left Gerald there as
22 arranged. I went home and at about 1.30 in the morning,
23 I had a phone call from M Tendil telling me about
24 the accident. Because of my position, I went straight
25 to the hotel. I was surprised to hear that the couple

103

1 had come back to the hotel instead of going to le Benoit
2 restaurant. I think that must have been decided in
3 the car because of the number of paparazzi following
4 the car. I think they decided it was better to have
5 dinner at the hotel where Dodi was at home and it would
6 be quieter for them.
7 "M Tendil told me there had been a lot of trouble
8 when the couple got to the hotel at about 10 o'clock.
9 The outside grilles had had to be closed which is only
10 done when there is an invasion of paparazzi. I was also
11 surprised when I heard that M Paul was at the hotel in
12 the evening because he had told me on the phone that he
13 was going home. Mr Tendil explained that he had told
14 M Paul about the problems and said that the couple were
15 coming back to the hotel, so M Paul returned to
16 the hotel.
17 "I note that you are showing me an album of 34
18 photos."
19 I wonder if at this point the jury could have a look
20 at the album which should appear under tab 6 of the jury
21 bundle. The witness goes on:
22 "After looking at them carefully, I can tell you
23 that I definitely recognise the person on page 3, 5 and
24 6 as the short fat man who was very aggressive and must
25 have threatened us that he would call the English

104

1 photographers. I recognise the man on page 3 in photos
2 5 and 6 [so that is Serge Benhamou] as the short fat man
3 who was very aggressive and must also have threatened us
4 that he would call the English photographers.
5 I recognised the man on page 4 in photos 7 and 8 [that
6 is Fabrice Chassery] He is definitely the one who was
7 acting as lookout. On page 11 are photos [that is
8 photos 21 and 22, Romuald Rat]. I definitely recognise
9 the photographer involved in the incident with Gerald.
10 He is the one whose lens Gerald touched. On page 9,
11 photos 17 and 18, [that is David Odekerken] I definitely
12 recognise one of the photographers who was at
13 the building. On page 15, 29 and 30 [that is Laslo
14 Veres] I definitely recognise the man with the limp who
15 threatened to call English colleagues.
16 "Lastly, there are some faces that look vaguely
17 familiar. I think I recognise some of the photographers
18 who were near the building on pages 1, 2, 5 and 7."
19 That is Serge Arnal, Nikola Arsov, Stephane Darmon
20 and Jacques Langevin:
21 "I am not quite so sure about the man in photos 12
22 and 13."
23 Those are different people. Photo 12 is
24 Alain Guizard, photo 13 is Jacques Langevin:
25 "In any case, there weren't any problems with these

105

1 last ones. I note that you are showing me and album of
2 13 photos entitled Ritz film. I recognise the people
3 I mentioned to you in the first album. In photo 6,
4 I definitely recognise the hard core of paparazzi who
5 were following the car when it left the Rue Arsene
6 Houssaye at about 9.30 and those are the photos taken
7 outside of the Ritz by CCTV.
8 "In answer to your question, I worked with M Paul
9 all of the time and he was quite normal on
10 30th August 1997 on the phone as well. I have worked
11 with him since 1989 and he has always been normal and
12 professional at work. I have nothing further to add."
13 And it records that Mr Gamblin confirmed and signed
14 the statement .
15 Those are three statements, there is a fourth one
16 adducing reports of Professors Forrest and Professors
17 Vanezis, Oliver and Johnston on toxicology, they are
18 rather longer, it is a matter for you, sir, when you
19 would like those read.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have a lot of reading next
21 week, so we might get them out of the way this
22 afternoon.
23 MR HOUGH: There are two statements of Tom Foley adducing
24 these reports. I will read both of those statements
25 before reading the reports.

106

1 Further statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read)
2 First statement, dated 3rd March 2008:
3 "I Thomas Foley, Legal Secretary to the inquests,
4 make the following statement:
5 "On 6th February 2008 Professor Baccino, the French
6 expert instructed in the investigation into the death of
7 James Andanson, gave evidence by videolink. Following
8 his oral evidence, transcripts of his evidence were
9 provided to Professor Forrest, the expert toxicologist
10 who has already given evidence in relation to Henri Paul
11 and to experts instructed by interested persons.
12 The experts also had access to expert evidence from
13 the original French judicial dossier of
14 the investigation. Professor Forrest produced a report
15 for the Coroner dated 20th February 2008, a copy of
16 which is attached to this statement as exhibit 1.
17 "On 25th February, the solicitors for Mr Al Fayed
18 provided to the Coroner a report in response, written by
19 Professors Vanezis, Oliver and Johnston. A copy of that
20 report is exhibited to this statement as exhibit 2.
21 Professor Oliver was asked to review that report and he
22 produced a further report dated 2nd March, a copy of
23 which is exhibited to this statement as exhibit 3. I am
24 aware that it has been agreed by all interested persons
25 and the Coroner that these reports should be read to

107

1 the jury in view of the narrow area of disagreement
2 between the experts."
3 And then Mr Foley says he believes that the facts
4 stated in the statement are true.
5 Further statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read)
6 Then the second statement, 5th March 2008, again
7 identifies Mr Foley as legal secretary to the inquests
8 and then says this:
9 "On 3rd March 2008, I made a statement by which
10 I exhibited various reports by Professors Forrest and
11 Professors Vanezis, Oliver and Johnston.
12 "On 4th March 2008, Professors Vanezis, Oliver and
13 Johnston produced a supplemental report, which I exhibit
14 hereto."
15 And he confirms the facts in that statement.
16 I begin by reading the first of those reports,
17 the report by Professor Forrest, dated 28th February
18 2008:
19 "This statement should be read together with
20 the previous reports and statements I have been asked to
21 produce in connection with this inquiry.
22 "I have now been asked to review the toxicology
23 report prepared by Dr Mathieu-Daube following his
24 examination of a sample obtained at post mortem from
25 a body subsequently identified as being that of

108

1 Mr James Andanson.
2 "I have reviewed the transcript of Professor Eric
3 Baccino's evidence given to the inquest on the afternoon
4 of 3rd February 2008. I have also been provided with
5 a copy of the translation of the report of
6 Dr Mathieu-Daube made following the analysis of a sample
7 of coagulated blood obtained at the post mortem.
8 "My understanding, on the basis of the inquest
9 transcript, is that there is no issue about the identity
10 of the deceased or the continuity of the samples
11 submitted to Dr Mathieu-Daube. I will thus deal only
12 therefore with the toxicological issues in this report.
13 "From the documents I have reviewed, I understand
14 that a vehicle fire occurred on the evening of 4th May
15 2000. Professor Baccino attended at the locus of the
16 fire at about 5.15 pm the following day and examined
17 there the badly burnt body of a male subsequently
18 identified as being the body of Mr James Andanson.
19 "Professor Baccino carried out a post-mortem
20 examination on the body on 10th May 2000, when he
21 obtained samples of neck muscle, buttock muscle,
22 meninges and a blood sample from the portal vein for
23 toxicological examination.
24 "The portal vein carries blood from the intestines
25 to the liver.

109

1 "Professor Baccino also noted that the liver was
2 the only identifiable organ present. The portal vein
3 carries blood from the intestines to the liver.
4 "Professor Baccino also noted a red colouration in
5 the blood vessels. Such a colouration can be caused by
6 the inhalation of carbon monoxide in life.
7 "Dr Mathieu-Daube was asked by Judge Marty to
8 examine two samples, in sealed containers numbered 4 and
9 5, for the presence of carbon monoxide, hydrogen
10 cyanide, stupefying substances and drugs.
11 "The original French instruction refers to
12 'substances stupefiantes' and 'substances
13 medicamenteuses'. I understand that, in France,
14 'substances stupefiantes' may usually be intended to
15 refer to narcotics or drugs of abuse, whereas
16 'substances medicamenteuses' would usually be intended
17 to refer to drugs used in medical practice.
18 "The contents of sealed container 5 are not
19 described in the papers I have seen and were not
20 reported by Dr Mathieu-Daube as having been analysed.
21 "Dr Mathieu-Daube describes the contents of sealed
22 container 4 as being 4.5 grams of coagulated blood of
23 a brick red colour.
24 "He did not analyse this sample for cyanide,
25 although he had been instructed to carry out such an

110

1 analysis.
2 "He analysed it for carbon monoxide, using a gas
3 chromatographic method and for haemoglobin by
4 a spectrophotometric method and then used these data to
5 calculate the saturation of the haemoglobin in
6 the sample with carbon monoxide reporting a result of
7 98 per cent.
8 "In an appendix to this report, I set out how
9 the calculation of the proportion of carboxyhaemoglobin
10 in the sample could have been done. Using the data
11 Dr Mathieu-Daube reports for the carbon monoxide and
12 haemoglobin results, I calculate carboxyhaemoglobin
13 proportion to be slightly less than 98 per cent, namely
14 95 per cent of the total haemoglobin.
15 "He describes using a high performance liquid
16 chromatography (HPLC) technique to screen the sample for
17 drugs and toxins and found none to be present.
18 "Comments:
19 "When a fire burns it produces fire gases. Fire
20 gases are often highly toxic, quite apart from the fact
21 that they will usually contain insufficient oxygen to
22 sustain life. The complete burning of carbon, present
23 in plastics, wood, flesh, fuels and plastics produces
24 carbon dioxide, which has an asphyxiating effect on
25 living creatures, but which cannot be meaningfully

111

1 measured in post mortem blood samples. The incomplete
2 burning of carbon produces carbon monoxide which is
3 highly toxic. It has a much higher affinity for
4 haemoglobin, the red pigment in blood that carried
5 oxygen from the lungs to the tissues, than does oxygen
6 itself. By combining with haemoglobin to produce
7 carboxyhaemoglobin, it thus interferes with
8 the transport of oxygen from the lungs to the tissues.
9 It also binds to the iron containing proteins in
10 the electron transport chain in the cells of the body
11 which is intimately involved in the conversion of food
12 substances and oxygen to energy within the cells. Thus
13 even if oxygen reaches the cells of a person poisoned
14 with carbon monoxide, the cells will have their ability
15 to use that oxygen interfered with.
16 "Blood with a high proportion of carboxyhaemoglobin
17 is a deep red colour. Living patients poisoned with
18 carbon monoxide often look pale as blood may be shunned
19 away from the skin, but after death, the tissues are
20 usually a deep red colour.
21 "If the fuel for the fire contains both nitrogen
22 containing compounds and carbon, for example, some
23 plastics or flesh, then cyanide may be produced.
24 "Cyanide also interferes with oxygen utilisation and
25 transport by the body and deceased patients poisoned

112

1 with cyanide will usually have tissues that are a deep
2 red colour. Again, if they reach hospital alive, they
3 may look pale and shocked.
4 "There are many other toxic compounds present in
5 fire gases, depending upon the nature of the fire,
6 the fuel, and the supply of oxygen to the fire.
7 Normally the only two measured post mortem are cyanide
8 and carbon monoxide.
9 "Persons who die in fires and who were alive when
10 the fire started often, but not always, have high levels
11 of carboxyhaemoglobin and cyanide in their blood post
12 mortem. Low concentrations may reflect death as being
13 due to other causes than the toxic effects of the
14 inhalation of fire gases or of them being dead at the
15 time the fire started.
16 "When the state of the body permits, the presence of
17 sooty material in the airways indicates that
18 the deceased has been breathing fire gases before death.
19 Such a finding complements toxicological analyses which
20 should never be interpreted in isolation.
21 "My experience is that very few persons who die in
22 fires have a carboxyhaemoglobin of 80 per cent. This is
23 also reflected in the scientific literature. A
24 carboxyhaemoglobin concentration of in excess of 50 per
25 cent is usually regarded as being lethal. Higher

113

1 concentrations, when considering all cases of poisoning
2 with carbon monoxide, not just fire deaths, are often
3 found in the deceased. This is the case in otherwise
4 fit persons who have not also taken overdoses and who
5 die as a result of inhaling vehicle exhaust gas
6 particularly when the engine is run from cold in an
7 enclosed space such as a garage.
8 "The carboxyhaemoglobin in this case is thus
9 unusually high.
10 "This may have several causes which may not be
11 mutually exclusive.
12 "Errors in the measurement of either the carbon
13 monoxide or the haemoglobin in the sample, or both,
14 could produce an erroneous carboxyhaemoglobin result.
15 An artefactually low haemoglobin measurement and/or an
16 artefactually high estimate for the carbon monoxide
17 concentration in the sample could provide
18 the explanation.
19 "Some workers, in cases like this, have measured
20 the iron concentration in the blood sample and used this
21 to calculate the haemoglobin concentration in preference
22 to using a spectrophotometric method of the haemoglobin
23 in the sample, as was used in this case. This is
24 because of concerns about the problems of measurement of
25 haemoglobin in a degraded sample by spectrophotometric

114

1 methods. Both sulphhaemoglobin and methaemoglobin may
2 confound the measurement of haemoglobin in a sample by
3 spectrophotometric means, depending upon the method
4 used. Both may be present in degraded samples obtained
5 from partially burnt cadavers.
6 "There is the possibility that direct exposure to
7 fire gases after death could have resulted in the blood
8 in the portal vein absorbing carbon monoxide producing
9 an artefactually elevated result. In this respect,
10 a scientific paper from Finland describes a case where
11 a body was partially burnt after the deceased was
12 murdered and high concentrations of cyanide, attributed
13 to diffusion of cyanide from fire gases in the blood,
14 but a low carboxyhaemoglobin was observed.
15 "It is necessary to consider the hypothesis that
16 the deceased could have been dead before the fire
17 started. Whilst this hypothesis cannot be totally
18 excluded and I do not consider it to be probable,
19 the data are also compatible with the deceased dying in
20 the fire with a possible contribution being made to
21 the carboxyhaemoglobin by post mortem diffusion of
22 carbon monoxide into the blood in the portal vein.
23 Artefacts in the analytical process as a result of
24 underestimating the concentration of haemoglobin in
25 the sample could also have contributed to the high

115

1 carboxyhaemoglobin result.
2 "The concentration of haemoglobin in the sample of
3 portal blood is higher than would normally be found in
4 life. This may reflect dehydration, with water being
5 driven out of the sample by the heat of the fire. This
6 obviously raises the possibility that the heat may also
7 have degraded the haemoglobin in the sample.
8 "The general toxicology screen was done by HPLC.
9 This technique, combined with Diode Array Detection
10 (DAD) has been used more widely in Continental Europe
11 than in the UK. A commercial system, the Millennium
12 system produced by the Waters Corporation achieved a
13 degree of market penetration. It was used, for example,
14 by Dr Pepin when he examined the samples attributed to
15 Henri Paul. He also used a number of other techniques.
16 "In general, one single analytical procedure may not
17 cover all of the toxic compounds that might be present
18 in a sample. A combined approach using immunochemical
19 techniques, HPLC (with Diode array detection) and gas
20 chromatography/mass spectroscopy will give greater
21 confidence that a negative result truly reflects
22 the absence of narcotics and medicinal drugs in
23 the sample. This is particularly so when the sample may
24 be degraded.
25 "There is also the point that heat may destroy

116

1 compounds of interest that may have been present in
2 the blood before death.
3 "Thus whilst many compounds of interest would have
4 been detected by the single test carried out, one cannot
5 be totally confident that all compounds of interest that
6 may have been present in the blood at the time of death
7 would have been detected.
8 "No test for volatile substances was carried out.
9 Obviously in a sample for such heat, any analysis for
10 ethanol (alcohol) would yield results that, at
11 the least, would be very difficult to interpret.
12 Nonetheless, in suspicious fire deaths, it can sometimes
13 be useful to look for other volatile substances in
14 blood. Occasionally, arson accelerants may be detected,
15 although volatile substances can be found in many cases
16 of fire deaths, making such results difficult to
17 interpret.
18 "Conclusions:
19 "The carboxyhaemoglobin concentration is higher than
20 is usually seen in a fire death. This may reflect
21 analytical artefact and/or post mortem diffusion of
22 carbon monoxide into blood in the portal system once the
23 abdominal wall burnt away. In my opinion the results
24 are likely to reflect death in a fire, but
25 the hypothesis that the deceased was dead before

117

1 the fire started cannot be totally excluded given such
2 a badly burned body. I do not think this is
3 a hypothesis that is at all likely.
4 "The general toxicology screen may have missed
5 compounds of potential interest, both by virtue of
6 the characteristics of the test itself and by
7 the potential effect of the heat of the fire on the
8 blood sample submitted.
9 "If additional information becomes available, for
10 example Dr Mathieu-Daube's analytical notes, standard
11 operating procedures and instrumental tracings and
12 print-outs, then I would be able to prepare
13 a supplementary report provided sufficient time is made
14 available."
15 And then the expert makes the appropriate expert
16 declaration.
17 Sir, I am going to spare the court the reading of
18 the appendix. I think Mr Burnett has something else to
19 raise before I start on the next report.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
21 MR BURNETT: Sir, I am conscious that everyone will need
22 a break before too long and I say this without any
23 disrespect to Mr Hough but at least speaking for myself,
24 following that expert's report was quite difficult as he
25 read it and it just occurs to me that during the break,

118

1 it may be possible, with my learned friends, to see
2 whether we might between us agree with whether we could
3 condense those that are to follow, perhaps just to their
4 conclusions. It may not be possible.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am sure that would be excellent
6 and I am sure the jury would strongly approve of that,
7 if you can do it.
8 MR BURNETT: Sir, I am conscious, also that the jury may
9 have also found it not so easy to follow it. And of
10 course they will have the benefit of your summing-up in
11 not too much time from now which will make it all
12 crystal clear.
13 MR HOUGH: I am very surprised that Mr Burnett does not know
14 his sulphhaemoglobins from his methhaemoglobins, but
15 a lot of sense is made there.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will break off for quarter an
17 hour now, members of the jury.
18 (2.40 pm)
19 (A short break)
20 (2.56 pm)
21 MR HOUGH: With the benefit of that break, we have been able
22 to cut a little bit out of the remaining reports, with
23 the assistance of my learned friends to my right.
24 The next is from Professors Vanezis, John Oliver and
25 Johnston. It is in response to Professor Forrest's

119

1 report which has just been read and the experts indicate
2 that the report should be read with previous reports and
3 statements which they have individually and collectively
4 produced in connection with these inquests and they
5 record that they have been provided with a transcript of
6 the evidence given by Professor Baccino and with
7 Professor Forrest's report just read and they then say:
8 "Pathology:
9 "The basis of the analysis, and the conclusions
10 drawn from it by Professor Forrest are dubious.
11 Professor Forrest accepts that he cannot rule out that
12 Mr Andanson was dead before the fire commenced but then
13 concludes that he does not think this is a likely
14 hypothesis. We fail to see how he can reach this
15 conclusion. The pathological features of the case do
16 not provide sufficient information. In the light of the
17 compromised and contaminated material available,
18 the death should properly be called 'unascertained'. Of
19 particular concern was that there was no lung tissue
20 available for consideration, which therefore prohibited
21 a search for inhaled soot particles.
22 "Additionally, the red colouration referred to and
23 described as being typical of COHB [carboxyhaemoglobin]
24 can also be present for other reasons, including from
25 the direct effect of a fire on a dead body.

120

1 The concentration of 95 per cent or above is far in
2 excess of any concentration of COHB normally seen in
3 fire-related deaths. One would normally find
4 concentration of 50/60 per cent, sometimes lower,
5 depending also on the interaction of cyanide.
6 "In those circumstances, a figure of 95 per cent
7 plus is exceptional and puzzling and provides no basis
8 whatsoever for saying with any confidence that
9 Mr Andanson was alive at the commencement of the fire.
10 "Toxicology:
11 "Consequently, there is insufficient and inadequate
12 information to assess whether the deceased could or
13 could not have been dead before the fire started.
14 We accept and agree that this possibility cannot be
15 excluded, but do not accept that on the information
16 available, Professor Forrest can realistically assess
17 the probability of whether Mr Andanson was dead or alive
18 before commencement of the fire.
19 "Similarly, we do not accept that the concluding
20 sentence of paragraph 40 of his statement is sustainable
21 on the basis of the information available.
22 "In those circumstances, and subject to the above
23 comments, and to what is set out below, we would accept
24 the report of Professor Forrest if:
25 "(i) the words 'I do not consider it to be problem'

121

1 were deleted from paragraph 32.
2 (ii) the final sentence of paragraph 40 was deleted.
3 "The level of carboxyhaemoglobin in the specimen
4 recovered was reported as being 98 per cent and
5 calculated by Professor Forrest as 95 per cent. This
6 latter figure agrees with our own calculation (as made
7 by Professor Oliver). Neither of these figures can be
8 achieved in life from the deliberate or accidental
9 inhalation of carbon monoxide. Consequently, the
10 possibility that the measured level could not have been
11 created during the fire either in whole or in part by
12 the diffusion of carbon monoxide into the portal vein as
13 described by Professor Forrest cannot be discounted.
14 Excluding evidence from the pathologist, the creation of
15 the measured level of carboxyhaemoglobin in total by
16 diffusion of carbon monoxide would be indicative of
17 death before fire. Alternatively, post mortem diffusion
18 could have enhanced the achieved by inhalation of
19 the fire gases whilst alive at the start of the fire."
20 And then Professor Forrest responds to that in
21 a report dated 2nd March 2008. In which he sets out
22 some preliminaries and then says this:
23 "There is, in fact, little difference between us
24 [that is to say himself and the other experts]
25 particularly in respect of matters of fact.

122

1 The principle differences in opinion relate to
2 the assessment of the relative probabilities that
3 the pathological and toxicological findings made on
4 examination of Mr Andanson's body might reflect either
5 that Mr Andanson was dead when the fire in the vehicle
6 where he was found started, or that he was alive when
7 the fire started.
8 "The hypothesis that Mr Andanson was dead when
9 the fire started does not necessarily mean that he had
10 a low carboxyhaemoglobin proportion in his blood at the
11 time the fire started. It is at least possible, for
12 example, that he could have died in the vehicle (or even
13 elsewhere) following inhalation of exhaust fumes, but
14 the paraphernalia usually associated with such a mode of
15 death, such as a hose leading from the exhaust to the
16 vehicle interior, was then removed and the fire started.
17 Such a situation, for which I understand that there is
18 no evidence and which I set out simply as a hypothetical
19 possibly, would be an example of a case that runs
20 counter to the usual received wisdom that a low
21 proportion of the carboxyhaemoglobin in the blood of a
22 body found dead at the locus of a fire indicates that
23 the deceased was unlikely to have been alive when
24 the fire started and that a high blood
25 carboxyhaemoglobin indicates that the deceased was alive

123

1 and breathing fire gases containing carbon monoxide
2 during the fire.
3 "There is no doubt that the proportion of
4 carboxyhaemoglobin in the 'blood' sample in the present
5 case is unusually high. It is unusual to find
6 a carboxyhaemoglobin even as high as 80 per cent in
7 the blood of a person who has died following
8 the inhalation of fire gases.
9 "Consequently, the high concentration of
10 carboxyhaemoglobin found in the present case cannot be
11 taken, in my opinion, as an indication that there was
12 anything unusual about the case other than the extensive
13 degree of burning of the body present. As I have
14 indicated, it is unusual for a toxicologist to be asked
15 to measure carboxyhaemoglobin in such a severely burnt
16 body. The high carboxyhaemoglobin certainly cannot be
17 taken as a reason for rejecting the hypothesis that
18 Mr Andanson was alive when the fire started in itself.
19 "Thus on the basis of the available data, it is my
20 opinion that the results are explicable on the basis
21 that the deceased was alive when the fire started and
22 breathed fire gases containing carbon monoxide before he
23 died. The scientific evidence base that suggests blood
24 can become saturated with carbon monoxide during a fire
25 when the victim was dead before the fire started is

124

1 deficient, but it is not a possibility that can be
2 rejected out of hand.
3 "Whether or not Mr Andanson was dead when the fire
4 started is of course ultimately a matter for the jury.
5 It may be that if, after taking into account all of
6 the evidence, they consider that the prior probability,
7 that Mr Andanson was alive when the fire started was
8 high and, consequently, that the toxicology results may
9 not be inconsistent with that hypothesis. If, on the
10 other hand, they consider that the prior probability of
11 him being dead when the fire started was high, then they
12 may decide that the results are not inconsistent with
13 that hypothesis. The real difficulty comes if all of
14 the other evidence does not enable an assessment of the
15 relative probabilities of M Andanson at the time
16 the fire started or dead at the time the fire started to
17 be made. In that case, I would say that the toxicology
18 results could be used to support the hypothesis that he
19 was alive when the fire started.
20 "If any credence were to be given to the third
21 hypothesis that I have suggested, that Mr Andanson were
22 to have been dead as a result of poisoning with carbon
23 monoxide before the fire started, then I do not believe
24 that the toxicology results would be of any assistance
25 in differentiating between that hypothesis and

125

1 the hypothesis that he was alive when the fire started
2 with, by implication, a normal carboxyhaemoglobin
3 concentration in his blood at that time.
4 "In short, my position is that for the reasons
5 I have set out, I consider that the results support
6 the hypothesis that he was alive when the fire started
7 to a greater degree, but do not exclude the hypothesis
8 that he was dead when the fire started. The final
9 conclusion depends on taking all the evidence into
10 account."
11 Then Professors Johnston, Oliver and Vanezis have
12 the last word in a report dated 4th March 2008:
13 "We agree with Professor Forrest that there is
14 little difference between us in respect of matters of
15 fact.
16 "However, we disagree with Professor Forrest's
17 assertion that the results of the toxicology and
18 pathology support the hypothesis that Mr Andanson was
19 alive when the fire started.
20 "As Professor Forrest points out it is uncommon for
21 toxicology laboratories to have to examine samples
22 collected from bodies that are as badly burnt as in
23 the present case. Consequently the scientific and
24 medical evidence as to whether or not a deceased was
25 alive when the fire started is not well documented in

126

1 the medical and scientific literature.
2 "Despite support of results from the medical and
3 scientific literature, Professor Forrest then goes on to
4 construct a scenario that supports his view that
5 Mr Andanson was alive when the fire started and fits
6 with the scant information that is available in
7 the scientific literature. However Professor Forrest
8 acknowledges the possibility that Mr Andanson was dead
9 when the fire started 'is not a possibility that can be
10 rejected out of hand'.
11 "It is our opinion that the toxicology and pathology
12 findings in this case do not support either view. That
13 is, the toxicology and pathology findings do not
14 indicate whether Mr Andanson was alive or dead before
15 his body was burnt in the fire.
16 "Using the evidence available to us, we cannot
17 conclude that Mr Andanson was alive when the fire
18 started, but neither can we or Professor Forrest exclude
19 the possibility that Mr Andanson was dead when the fire
20 started.
21 "In short, the toxicology is inconclusive and
22 therefore non informative about whether Mr Andanson was
23 alive or dead when the fire started."
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is all in the last words,
25 isn't it?

127

1 MR HOUGH: So those experts would say.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, members of the jury, you
3 are probably rather relieved having heard all that that
4 Mr Andanson's death is one removed from the deaths into
5 which we are inquiring, but there we are. That is all
6 as far as the jury is concerned this afternoon.
7 MR HOUGH: I am afraid they don't have to hear any more
8 statements from me, sir.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, I have some
10 matters to deal with the counsel in relation to possible
11 outstanding witnesses which needs to be cleared up, but
12 we don't need to keep you for that. Resume again on
13 Monday next week. We will be sitting Monday, Tuesday,
14 Wednesday, Thursday next week, not Friday. The main
15 thrust of the evidence next week is going to be
16 introducing the paparazzi evidence but it will be an
17 awful lot of reading, so I am afraid it may be not
18 the easiest week, but it has to be done because
19 we cannot get the paparazzi here themselves.
20 So, see you on Monday at half past 9.
21 (Jury out)
22 Discussion re further evidence
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett, in dealing with
24 the matters that we are about to deal with, it seems to
25 me that the appropriate course is to make a contempt of

128

1 court order that there should be no publication of
2 the argument that is put before me in the period about
3 to follow, but that that should extend until the jury
4 has returned its verdict. But my decision at the end of
5 the argument should be a matter that should be open to
6 publication and I think probably with the reasons for
7 it, if I am minded to give any reasons of any
8 consequence, which I would suspect I might in certain
9 instances.
10 MR BURNETT: Yes, well, sir, as everyone who is about to
11 address you knows, we are concerned with questions of
12 whether certain further witnesses should be called and
13 certain further inquiries be made and, in our
14 submission, it would be appropriate for a postponing
15 order of the sort you have identified because
16 inevitably, it will be necessary for those making
17 submissions to refer to evidence and essentially deploy
18 arguments which it would be inappropriate for the jury
19 to encounter in any form.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It may not be very far removed in
21 some instances from the kind of submissions that
22 we would have at the end anyway.
23 MR BURNETT: Certainly sir, so we would support that
24 approach. As to any ruling you make, sir, that is
25 a different matter and you will no doubt look at it when

129

1 you have made such rulings as you do.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, Mr Mansfield, do you take
3 the same view, or do you want to try to persuade me
4 otherwise or what?
5 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, yes, in principle. The only concern
6 might be if a ruling had reasons attached which --
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I had wondered about that, yes.
8 MR MANSFIELD: -- might at this stage pre-empt further
9 submission, that is all.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
11 MR MANSFIELD: I do know what reasons there could be --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, if you are happy with
13 regard to all the witnesses with decisions and no
14 reasons --
15 MR MANSFIELD: No reasons at this stage.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: -- at this stage.
17 MR MANSFIELD: And it may be that a later stage is not too
18 far down the line. For example, anticipating that
19 the evidence does conclude before the Easter break and
20 that will there will be an opportunity that you are
21 contemplating at that stage for an address from us,
22 short though it may be, it may be at that point, if you
23 felt inclined, reasons could be published then.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. I am not minded anyway to
25 give very detailed reasons, even on submissions at that

130

1 stage, because I think the time would be better spent in
2 preparing the summing-up rather than going into a lot of
3 reasons.
4 MR MANSFIELD: No, I do follow that. I am just suggesting
5 that that might be at a later appropriate time for
6 reasons to be given. Otherwise, for my part, I merely
7 ask that the decision be given.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The decision would certainly be
9 given in open court.
10 Mr Keen?
11 MR KEEN: Sir, I am essentially neutral on the issue of
12 further evidence and further witnesses. My only
13 observation, and I hope it is not out of place, would be
14 that if there is to be a decision, then strictly there
15 must be reasons for that decision and there is
16 the theoretical possibly that a party might, for
17 example, seek review of a decision and then reasons
18 would have to be available.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
20 MR KEEN: I merely raise that point because going forward,
21 it might not be entirely satisfactory if there was
22 merely a bald decision and no reasoning with it. In
23 saying that, I do not seek to imply that I am already
24 contemplating an application for judicial review.
25 I would rather wait for your decision and then seek to

131

1 review it.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
3 MR MANSFIELD: Could I just clarify one thing? I am not
4 suggesting that there should not be reasons, but they
5 should not be published.
6 MR CROXFORD: I was going to say exactly that, with respect.
7 There should be reasons but that your Contempt of Court
8 Act order should extend until after the jury have
9 delivered their verdict.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. The only difficulty is that
11 giving reasons to those who are here and restricting
12 their publication is I think going to place
13 a considerably difficult burden on the press in case of
14 this kind.
15 MR CROXFORD: I venture no observation about whether it is
16 difficult or not, sir, but the primary concern must be
17 the effect upon the jury and the due discharge and --
18 I am pushing at an open door, I know, here.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Of course.
20 MR CROXFORD: One would expect reasons in this day and age,
21 with the greatest respect, it may well be that giving
22 your reasons now may assist all those who are
23 participating in the inquest to further refine
24 the documents which you already know are all underway,
25 insofar as there is any cross-fertilisation and we are

132

1 talking about a very short period of time when no doubt
2 there are lots of other things that the press can
3 report.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell?
5 MR HORWELL: Decision only should be published in our
6 submission.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, and given at this stage?
8 MR HORWELL: Yes.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But no reasons given?
10 MR HORWELL: Sir, there must be reasons, for arguments ...
11 sir, there must be reasons for the arguments advanced
12 but it cannot be right, especially as we are so near to
13 the retirement of the jury for those reasons to be given
14 and published.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, once they are given, there
16 is a danger, particularly in this case, that they will
17 be published because we are concerned not just with
18 the responsible media that we have here, but there is
19 foreign media and there is a risk of it coming back
20 round the world, isn't there?
21 MR HORWELL: I appreciate that. But whatever may happen
22 outside this jurisdiction, at least you can control what
23 happens within it.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Up to a point.
25 MR HOUGH: Yes. I am only adding to what has been said; in

133

1 our submission, it should be decision only that be
2 published.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett?
4 MR BURNETT: That is rather what I was hinting at, when
5 I suggest that had we might need to revisit that when we
6 know your decision on the controversial points and
7 the bare bones reasoning for it.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well now, can we deal with --
9 I think probably the best starting point with regard to
10 further evidence at this stage is the Metropolitan
11 Police's email.
12 If I can take the witnesses one by one and see if
13 there is any area of dispute, if we start with Dr Melo,
14 I think the position there is that her evidence ought to
15 be read if we are unable to secure her attendance, which
16 we are still trying to do, but there are increasing
17 indications that we may have difficulty getting her.
18 MR BURNETT: Sir, that would be our submission. I am not
19 frankly certain at this stage whether her evidence would
20 be capable as being read as uncontroversial under
21 Rule 37 or whether it would be necessary technically to
22 introduce it as hearsay.
23 If it needed to come in as hearsay, we are hoping to
24 hear from Vincent Delbreilh at some stage next week.
25 And he could do that.

134

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is really a matter of
2 the report; we are having difficulty getting hold of
3 Dr Melo. She is on holiday at the moment. She has not
4 been answering any of our requests to tell us whether
5 she is prepared to give evidence. The French
6 authorities have been unable to serve an effective
7 summons.
8 MR MANSFIELD: I was going to make a preparatory remark. We
9 have not had the email, I am afraid.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: From the Metropolitan Police?
11 MR HORWELL: It is the problem that is so often experienced,
12 it went at 12 minutes past 6. I will just find out if
13 it went to all interested persons as well as the court.
14 MR CROXFORD: Last night?
15 MR BURNETT: Sir, I think Mr Smith may have forwarded
16 the email last night but there is nothing terribly
17 mysterious about it --
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. They are all pretty
19 straightforward.
20 MR BURNETT: Sir, would it help if I whizzed through them,
21 indicating what our view at least would be in submission
22 to you.
23 The first is Dr Melo who you have dealt with.
24 The second is Keith Brown and the Met suggest his
25 statement should be read in order to ensure that there

135

1 is formal identification of Dodi Al Fayed's body.
2 Sir, that is a precaution which is wise to take.
3 That would be Rule 37.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
5 MR BURNETT: Ditto Dr Peter Wheeler to ensure formal
6 identification of the body of the Princess of Wales.
7 The fourth witness they mention is Mr Delbreilh who
8 is in any event coming, we hope next week. So that is
9 covered.
10 The fifth is Adrian Grater and the note in the email
11 is simply this:
12 "His statement dated 21st February 2008 should be
13 read as he interviewed a variety of witnesses who
14 corroborate Kelly Fisher's account of her engagement."
15 Sir, whether that is necessary is really a matter
16 that you can reflect upon. But it is a short statement.
17 The next is Mr Mules and the note was:
18 "We would ask that a few parts of his statements be
19 read which we will identify as we now do not have
20 the ability to cross-examine him."
21 In principle, if there is material evidence that
22 that officer would have given which we are now going to
23 be deprived of, then it can be introduced as hearsay.
24 The next was Assistant Chief Constable Gargan who
25 has provided some answers to the questions he was asked

136

1 following his attendance here and that we would submit
2 should be read via the hearsay route.
3 Next is Frederic Lucard. Everyone will know that
4 the inquest Secretariat has continued in its attempts to
5 try to find him and to secure his attendance. One has
6 to realistically recognise that that is becoming
7 increasingly unlikely and in those circumstances,
8 we would submit that his evidence should be introduced
9 via the hearsay route.
10 There are then two witnesses, Christophe Lascaux and
11 Alain Remy, Christophe Lascaux has also been asked by
12 Barlow Lyde and Gilbert on behalf of the Ritz.
13 Alain Remy is one of those witnesses we had hoped to
14 appear in November but did not show up. Both of those
15 we submit should be introduced via the hearsay route.
16 Then the Met suggest that four witnesses should be
17 read who provide supporting evidence that Mr Andanson's
18 death was suicide; those are Franck Doveri, Sophie
19 Deniau, Christian Maillard and Jean-Gabriel Barthelemy.
20 Our submission on those would be that you have
21 chosen to introduce evidence from the dossier --
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will finish up with a complete
23 inquiry into Mr Evans --
24 MR BURNETT: Yes, via --
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It does not need a lot of

137

1 imagination to see what Mr Mansfield would want.
2 MR BURNETT: Sir, we would respectfully suggest that if
3 the reading of the four of those would lead to a request
4 of the reading of six more which it is inevitably going
5 to, the points have been adequately covered and there is
6 no need for that to come in.
7 Next is Barbara Broccoli in respect of whom we were
8 provided a statement about a week ago. The inquest
9 teams have been in touch with Miss Broccoli, I think
10 yesterday, to seek some further information and once
11 that is to hand, it is likely that we at least would be
12 suggesting that her evidence should be introduced via
13 the hearsay route.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, and I do make the point here
15 that it is not very helpful to be presented with
16 a statement by one of the interested persons in
17 circumstances such as this. It would be much better if
18 we were told about the witness and then had
19 the opportunity of taking the statement ourselves from
20 the witness, because the difficulty is we get
21 the information that much later in the day and then
22 there are problems in tracking down the witness and
23 speaking to her.
24 MR BURNETT: Yes, sir. We would endorse that, particularly
25 as we are coming to the end of the inquest process. If

138

1 new witnesses come out of the woodwork, it would be much
2 better, we would respectfully submit, that interested
3 persons who get knowledge of those witnesses pass their
4 particulars immediately to Mr Smith so that he, on your
5 behalf, can make inquiries but he has in any event been
6 making inquiries of Miss Broccoli who is in a jungle in
7 Central America and who will not be able to give
8 evidence by videolink and so such evidence as comes from
9 her will have to be via the hearsay route.
10 Last on the Met list was Della Davis who needs no
11 introduction. Our respectful submission would be that
12 Mrs Davis' evidence which supports that of her husband,
13 as you may remember, can adequately be introduced via
14 the hearsay route rather than troubling her to come all
15 the way from North Wales, only for her to give her
16 evidence and very little to be asked of her.
17 So those are the Met witnesses so far as we are
18 aware of them.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We might as well deal with
20 the other witnesses who have been mentioned. Gamblin
21 has already been read now?
22 MR BURNETT: Yes, he has now.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And then there is Hewitt who is
24 sought I think by Mr Al Fayed.
25 MR BURNETT: Yes.

139

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I should mention that having been
2 contacted by Mr Roulet indicating that there is further
3 evidence that he would be able to give the inquest that
4 he had overlooked, which are also effects and we need
5 the comments of Dourneau and Musa, they have now been
6 seen and signed statements have been obtained from them.
7 They I think are in Paris at the moment and it will be
8 necessary to call all three of those witnesses before
9 the end of the inquest to deal with the additional
10 matter. The statements, if they have not already been
11 disclosed by email will be in the course of this
12 afternoon, two of them have only just been signed and
13 I think the plan is that we know Mr Roulet's only date
14 is Monday week. Mr Musa can do that date. Mr Dourneau
15 is apparently on holiday so there may be problems about
16 having his evidence in person. But that can be
17 explored.
18 MR BURNETT: So far as the others are concerned -- if I say
19 the others, other than two that we will have a debate
20 about, Mr Hewitt we have indicated. Sir, our respectful
21 submission in respect of Mr Hewitt is that such evidence
22 as he can give which goes to what he describes as some
23 threats, if one puts it at its highest, made to him
24 a long time ago when he was having a relationship with
25 the Princess of Wales are so far removed from

140

1 the circumstances of the crash to suggest that it would
2 really not be a useful exercise to call him and we have
3 of course heard from Mr Hasnat Khan, who has given
4 evidence of unpleasant communications to him arising in
5 similar circumstances.
6 So, our submission, sir, would be that it is
7 a matter for you of course, but it would not be
8 inappropriate to conclude that it was inexpedient to
9 call him.
10 Sir, we have also had a request that a witness
11 called Maraire(?) be read I have to say I have
12 completely forgotten what he says, even though I know I
13 was told only a day or two ago.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It does not ring a bell with me.
15 MR MANSFIELD: It is a telephone bell. I put this, or at
16 least the essence of it, to earlier witnesses from
17 France. He telephoned Henri Paul on the day, that is
18 the Saturday, twice, leaving a message for a meeting for
19 dinner and when he did not get a message, he rang again
20 in the evening at about the appointed hour. He says a
21 little bit more because he knows Henri Paul quite well,
22 but that is what it is about.
23 MR BURNETT: I am grateful. Mr Mansfield did in fact
24 explain that to me only two days ago, but I confess it
25 had completely slipped my mind. But sir, that evidence

141

1 we submit can readily be introduced by the hearsay
2 route. It may even be uncontroversial.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
4 MR BURNETT: There is then an email that has been given to
5 me which has come from Mr Benson at 3 o'clock, which
6 raises some other issues.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Does this deal with witnesses?
8 We asked for this yesterday, at the latest by yesterday
9 evening.
10 MR BURNETT: Sir, I think I am in a position to deal with
11 it. The first are Le Maire and Le Tellier and the note
12 is:
13 "I trust that successful contact with both of these
14 witnesses has been achieved by your office and
15 arrangements for them to give evidence by videolink have
16 been made."
17 I believe the answer to that is yes. Attempts have
18 been made --
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have had some difficulty with
20 reluctance.
21 MR BURNETT: If it is impossible to secure their attendance
22 via videolink, their evidence will have to be introduced
23 via the hearsay route.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
25 MR BURNETT: Mr Benson then alludes to a potential witness

142

1 who was drawn to his attention and in turn to ours,
2 which is in hand, is as much as I can say at this stage.
3 There is then a mention of a witness called
4 Jean-Pierre Alidiere who is another barman at the Ritz
5 whose evidence could certainly be read as hearsay and
6 the last is Sandra Coudlot who was Henri Paul's cleaner
7 and gives some evidence in her statement about
8 the bottles that might usually be in his flat. Again,
9 that is evidence which you might feel could be
10 introduced via the hearsay route. It is unrealistic to
11 suppose that in the time left we are going to secure
12 their attendance by videolink.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is that likely to be disputed?
14 MR BURNETT: Sir, yes, it is disputed because it does not
15 tie up entirely with the evidence that we have already
16 had from M Garrec.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
18 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I have been discussing, particularly with
19 Mr Hough, over the past two or three weeks the question
20 of Mr Le Van Thanh. Quite apart from the fact that
21 I understand a witness statement was recently taken from
22 him, I do not know whether it has been signed off or
23 not, we certainly have not seen it --
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I have not seen it.
25 MR CROXFORD: The Metropolitan Police were there a month ago

143

1 taking the statement with the French police. There are
2 a couple of witnesses associated with Van Thanh that
3 Mr Hough and I condescended to detail with. I do not
4 think it is controversial. It is an Officer Dumas, if
5 I remember rightly and I want to say, a Mr Pencil but I
6 know that is not the right name, Mr Hough knows very
7 well who I refer to, the officer that investigated
8 Mr Le Van Thanh at the time. Mr Pencil, I will use
9 the name for clarity, was the man who gave some evidence
10 about the repainting of the car contemporaneously with
11 the --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I wait with interest to see what
13 is in Mr Van Thanh's statement, but I am somewhat
14 sceptical whether it is going to take the inquest any
15 further.
16 MR CROXFORD: In light of the non-controversial scientific
17 conclusions in respect of his car, the unfortunate
18 feature, of course and I am not casting brickbats, was
19 that his photograph was put up with the impressive dog
20 at the time when the scientific evidence clearly showed
21 what it showed and the material investigations by the
22 French authorities showed why they had excluded him.
23 It is just a question of completing the picture.
24 MR HOUGH: I think the intention has been to introduce
25 the evidence of all the inquiries, French and English,

144

1 in relation to Mr Le Van Thanh through the medium of
2 Detective Sergeant Easton who was involved in those
3 inquiries. It has recently come to our attention that
4 some inquiries have been undertaken very recently but
5 those are yet to be put into statement form because of
6 having to deal with liaison authorities and once they
7 are, the final statement of Mr Easton will be put
8 together and provided as soon as it is available.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We are going to need it pretty
10 soon. We only have very few more days.
11 MR HOUGH: I agree and as I understand it, the French
12 authorities are being pressed. If the material cannot
13 be made available, then simply all the inquiries which
14 have been carried out will be put forward in evidence by
15 Mr Easton.
16 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I do not imagine that is intended to be
17 excluding the contemporaneous material of investigation,
18 that is Dumas and the man I have called Pencil but
19 Mr Hough knows broadly who I have in mind.
20 MR HOUGH: I agree the draft statement we have worked on
21 does include the French investigations and Mr Papic(?)
22 AKA Pencil.
23 MR CROXFORD: I was close.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Can we go down this list of
25 witnesses and see if we can pick them off one by one as

145

1 it were.
2 Dr Melo? Any observations about that? We will
3 introduce her evidence by the hearsay route if we cannot
4 get her. Any objections?
5 Keith Brown and Dr Wheeler? I imagine nobody wants
6 to say anything about them.
7 Delbreilh, with regard to the prescriptions?
8 Sergeant Grater, I am not exactly clear what
9 evidence is sought here.
10 MR HORWELL: It is the inquiries that were made some time
11 ago to confirm Kelly Fisher's evidence of engagement
12 party. I have not looked at it for some time. It is
13 certainly engagement and/or wedding. We would submit
14 there has been quite an imbalance of evidence after
15 Kelly Fisher gave her evidence as to the status of their
16 relationship. And we suggest that this has become
17 relevant evidence.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is pretty far removed really
19 whether she was engaged or was not engaged.
20 MR HORWELL: Sir, I agree, but we have heard nonetheless,
21 however far removed that may be, we have heard evidence
22 from other witnesses who have given a contrary
23 indication. And this is a statement which will take but
24 minutes to read, but it is confirmation from witnesses
25 in the United States of America to the evidence of that

146

1 relationship that Kelly Fisher gave.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Anybody object?
3 MR MANSFIELD: It is difficult to know how to deal with this
4 because it is one thing for witnesses to come here and
5 give evidence about it and be asked about the conditions
6 or circumstances. It is quite another for somebody to
7 say, well, we made a lot of inquiries some months ago or
8 even a year ago, these are the people we inquired of and
9 this is what they said and they are not subject to any
10 cross-examination.
11 If my learned friend feels it is relevant, then
12 the question really ought to be the attendance of those
13 witnesses, or it is peripheral because it is dealing
14 with a party that is said to have taken place,
15 I believe, the year before, it is 1996.
16 Therefore we would submit that if there are key
17 witnesses to be given on that topic, they should be
18 here, rather than dealt with in this way.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think it is peripheral, really.
20 MR MANSFIELD: Yes.
21 MR BURNETT: Sir, it is unrealistic to suppose at this stage
22 unless we were for the sake of these witnesses to have
23 a separate day which may well take us beyond Easter,
24 it is unrealistic to suppose their attendance can be
25 secured either here or --

147

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is a fairly marginal issue
2 here.
3 MR BURNETT: It is. I am conscious of fact that for a short
4 period, many, many weeks ago, it was an issue that
5 generated a great deal of excitement.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have the tape.
7 MR BURNETT: It is a very peripheral issue in the overall
8 question of how these two people came by their deaths.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think we will not have any more
10 evidence there.
11 Then the next one is Mules. I think we obviously
12 need to identify the parts of his statement.
13 MR HORWELL: Sir, I simply have not had time. They are very
14 few but I will on Monday. They are passages I would
15 have put to him had I had the opportunity to
16 cross-examine him.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Anybody have anything to say
18 there?
19 MR KEEN: There may be further passages --
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You had better have a look as
21 well.
22 MR KEEN: I simply put up the marker that we will also
23 address that.
24 MR CROXFORD: He will affect some of the paparazzi, he will
25 affect one or two other bits and pieces but that will be

148

1 dealt with at the bar, sir. I do not think it is
2 a question of talking to him.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Gargan there is no problem about,
4 because that is simply answering questions that have
5 been raised.
6 Lucard?
7 MR KEEN: I think just one observation on that, sir.
8 Lucard's evidence falls into two parts. He was what was
9 termed the car jockey who brought the Mercedes round to
10 the Rue Cambon and he speaks to doing that and to
11 the car taking off. Not a problem --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And there is something about "you
13 won't catch me" as well, or something like that?
14 MR KEEN: He speaks to that but there is a second part at
15 the end of statement where he is attributed to having
16 heard certain comments by Tendil and it does seem to me
17 to be a little difficult to see how as a matter of
18 expediency it would be appropriate to adduce hearsay
19 evidence of what Lucard said he heard from Tendil when
20 nobody sought to ask Tendil when he was in the witness
21 box whether he said what was attributed to him. At the
22 end of the day it is a matter of expediency, I suppose,
23 because of course one could get over that by recalling
24 Tendil and then going back through it, but I wonder
25 whether anyone considers it is a matter of materiality

149

1 such as to be --
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We think we have found him now,
3 but the problem is persuading him to come to give
4 evidence.
5 MR KEEN: I am happy that he comes and gives evidence, sir.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will get him if we can, we
7 would like to, but we are doubtful whether that will be
8 achievable. Can we leave this over until the time comes
9 to read his evidence?
10 MR KEEN: I am content to do that, sir, I am just concerned
11 about hearsay of hearsay when the matter was not put to
12 the actual source of the statement.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will look into that.
14 Lascaux and Remy. Hearsay route, very well.
15 Della Davis. I think there was an issue as to
16 whether her evidence could be read or whether she ought
17 to be called.
18 MR HORWELL: As you understand, sir, it is evidence
19 we cannot accept. We do submit that this is now so
20 peripheral in terms of the issues this jury have to
21 consider.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I do not think Mr Mansfield would
23 agree with that.
24 MR HORWELL: I am sure he would not. But if every time
25 a witness said: I told my wife or: I told my husband

150

1 we then go to the spouse concerned, we would still be on
2 the first stage of these inquests.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Why can't it be read as
4 uncontroversial?
5 MR HORWELL: It is an extraordinary act of remembrance of
6 a telephone conversation ten years ago.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: She had better come then.
8 Does anybody else want to have any input?
9 Barbara Broccoli, we are working on that at the
10 moment.
11 Hewitt? Mr Mansfield?
12 MR MANSFIELD: I was really reserving oral submissions for
13 the two other matters I have. I am not going to take up
14 your time --
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I really think Hewitt falls into
16 the same "fallen away" category as the Kelly Fisher
17 engagement.
18 MR MANSFIELD: I accept that.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much. I do not
20 suppose anybody wants to say anything about Roulet,
21 Dourneau and Musa until they have seen what their
22 statements say.
23 And then Mr Horwell, do you want to push Doveri,
24 Denaiu, Maillard and Barthelemy?
25 MR HORWELL: Sir, having heard your comments, I respectfully

151

1 agree and so I will withdraw those from the list.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Have we covered Maraire?
3 MR BURNETT: I think everybody is content on that front.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That gets us back to what we are
5 really here about.
6 MR BURNETT: Sir, would you reiterate that certainly from
7 now on there is a Contempt of Court Act order in place
8 postponing reporting of what follows until after
9 the jury have given their verdict.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Indeed, yes.
11 Submissions by MR MANSFIELD
12 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I think, beginning, if I may, going back
13 to the question of reasons. I think there will
14 obviously have to be reasons and they will have to be
15 available, in my submission, not published.
16 If the concern is obviously lack of control over
17 what may happen beyond these shores, certainly it is not
18 unknown obviously for those reasons to be made available
19 to those representing the interested parties with
20 the usual undertakings. That is the only qualification
21 that I would make as a further suggestion.
22 Sir, with regard therefore to the two remaining
23 matters, we have set the matters out very clearly in
24 letters and correspondence. I am going to avoid
25 repeating the material that is in the letters but

152

1 I would like a moment and we are obliged to you for
2 allowing a moment orally just to develop them. So that
3 it is clear, the two matters are that the Duke of
4 Edinburgh you should consider or reconsider him being
5 called as a witness in the case and in relation to Her
6 Majesty the Queen, that various inquiries, not very
7 many, should at this stage be made of her and I will
8 itemise those in a moment.
9 Sir, may I deal with the position as far as the Duke
10 of Edinburgh is concerned first?
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
12 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, the way I would seek to develop it is
13 this. I will do it in brief form and I do not wish to
14 pre-empt, obviously, the submissions that are coming
15 from all parties, still less of course your own
16 summing-up but needless to say, what I am about to say
17 has a bearing on all of that.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
19 MR MANSFIELD: The starting point is this that at the end --
20 and I am sorry to go back all these months. I am not
21 going to read too much out, but I merely give references
22 so you may see where it is and you may in fact rememb