Hearing transcripts

30 January 2008 - Morning session

1 Wednesday, 30th January 2008
2 (10.00 am)
3 (Jury out)
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I understand, Mr Mansfield, that
5 there is something you wanted to raise before the jury
6 come in.
7 Discussion re: jury bundle documentation
8 MR MANSFIELD: If I may, and I am obliged for just a short
9 time to deal with this. May I deal with it in the order
10 in which events occurred so that it's fully clear? It
11 relates to what has now been put into the jury bundle.
12 There is an index which refers to this matter at tab 16,
13 and tab 16 itself, which is a copy of Hansard and the
14 Prime Minister's statement with regard to intercepts.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
16 MR MANSFIELD: This matter in fact arose initially very late
17 on Thursday, when Mr Jephson, who -- as you will
18 remember, we were endeavouring to finish by 5 o'clock,
19 when my learned friend Mr Hough said he had one very
20 quick point -- I am not taking any objection to what he
21 did -- was to ask Mr Jephson about the statement. He
22 plainly had it at that point and read it out. The
23 question was really being posed as to whether, in
24 relation to that, Mr Jephson could gainsay it or not.
25 Then it finished.

1

1 Just as the witness withdrew, you sir, indicated,
2 "Could we have hard copies of that made available,
3 please, for the jury bundle and for me as well as
4 anybody else?" You then rose. I didn't wish, at that
5 point, to delay any further, so I raised with one of my
6 learned friends then that I would have objection to it
7 going into the jury bundle because this is a highly
8 contentious area and should be the subject to evidence,
9 and the jury bundle -- so far, all the items that have
10 been put in have been done with agreement and there has
11 been no problem.
12 On Friday -- that is when we were not sitting --
13 I had a long telephone conference with Mr Burnett, your
14 leading counsel. I am not going through everything that
15 we discussed, but one of them was this very matter,
16 where I made it very clear that I did object to this
17 going into the jury bundle, and Mr Burnett himself
18 indicated that some research would need to be done as
19 to the legal basis for what is said in the House of
20 Commons.
21 Nothing further happened after that. On Monday we
22 were obviously consumed with other matters and I was
23 completely unaware of what had happened. It may be
24 wrong, but this is what I have been informed: in fact,
25 on Friday afternoon, copies of this statement were

2

1 available, and, in fact, supposedly circulated, but
2 certainly none of us on this side had had it.
3 What appears to have happened, on the Thursday
4 afternoon -- and I hope this is right -- is that it was
5 then inserted into the bundles on Thursday. However, we
6 didn't know that. I did not know it on Monday, and it
7 was only yesterday, when a copy of a new index plus
8 tab 16 was provided. I immediately asked how this had
9 come about. I was then asked if I would, as it were,
10 hold off raising the matter, so I did, and at the end of
11 the day, tried to ascertain what has happened here,
12 because certainly I would submit that, so far as this is
13 concerned, this should never have been placed in the
14 jury bundle at this stage, given the way in which
15 matters have proceeded to date.
16 This, as you know, is a matter which has been
17 subject to questions of a number of different people,
18 and if the answer is being put in the jury bundle in
19 order to demonstrate the truth of its contents, then it
20 certainly can't, we say, be there for that purpose any
21 more than the question, which is actually not there on
22 the sheet that's been put in, that was posed by a Member
23 of Parliament, in terms effectively -- I have the
24 original question:
25 "As for bugging and telephoto lenses, it is fairly

3

1 certain that MI5 and GCHQ have been involved."
2 I am not suggesting that that is any more evidence
3 of the truth of what has been said by a Member of
4 Parliament than what in fact the Prime Minister says on
5 that occasion -- I think it was in fact the 19th -- it
6 was January 1993, 19th January.
7 So what I ask is for that to be withdrawn from the
8 jury bundle at this stage, and that, because they may
9 have seen it -- I don't know how many of them have, but
10 there is certainly a risk that some of them have noticed
11 that there is an extra tab and looked at it -- that it
12 was premature and that this is a matter that will have
13 to be subjected to evidence at some stage. If, however,
14 the position is that it cannot be withdrawn at this
15 stage, in any event, then I would ask that the maker of
16 the statement is made a witness to this inquest.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But the contents of the statement
18 were introduced to the jury without any objection.
19 MR MANSFIELD: I had no idea it was going to be put in this
20 way.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And indeed no objection was made
22 when I suggested it should go into the jury bundle.
23 MR MANSFIELD: No, not at that stage. It was at 5 o'clock
24 in the afternoon. I could have detained you; I didn't.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.

4

1 MR MANSFIELD: I am not objecting to the fact that a witness
2 may have something put to them because a large amount of
3 material in this case, in the wide-ranging inquiry which
4 you have allowed --
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, I didn't think it was
6 contentious that the Prime Minister had made this
7 statement.
8 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, it certainly is, because it is not --
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You are suggesting he has not
10 made the statement at all?
11 MR MANSFIELD: No, sir, I am not suggesting that. He made
12 the statement. Why is it put in the bundle? Is it put
13 there to show that this is something which has been
14 rejected by the government of the day, and, of course,
15 governments of the day often reject various items which
16 later turn out to be true, and therefore this area,
17 namely -- and, of course, all the witnesses who have
18 claimed that they know or believe that it was
19 commonplace for members of the Royal Family to be
20 monitored, for a variety of reasons -- and there are
21 three of them now -- an ex-police officer, the royal
22 butler and the private personal secretary who is
23 Mr Jephson himself, Commander Jephson -- in all those
24 three cases, they were fairly clear in their beliefs.
25 Now if, of course, they are wrong, this can be dealt

5

1 with and it goes back to the original point of evidence
2 in which Mr Burrell said that he had been told by Diana
3 that the Queen had requested an internal investigation.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: What is your point underlying all
5 this? Is it that what the Prime Minister said in the
6 House of Commons was not true?
7 MR MANSFIELD: No. The underlying point is that we don't
8 know and it cannot go in as evidence of the truth until
9 we do know. We have no underlying documents, we have no
10 response from anyone as to whether, first of all, the
11 Queen did ask for an investigation --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The fact is it's in.
13 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, and may I say it's most unfortunate
14 because I had made it very clear that very day. If
15 I may say so, it's clear that this statement was
16 available, and if I am right, it went in immediately on
17 that day, even though I had raised objection. I could
18 have delayed you on that day, but I didn't. I have
19 tried to accommodate --
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, you didn't raise objection,
21 and my understanding was that it was going to go
22 straight into the bundle, and as far as I am aware, it
23 did.
24 MR MANSFIELD: We had no notice that this was going to
25 happen; we were not given an opportunity for

6

1 representations. You did not say to any of us "Is that
2 a course that is acceptable?"
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am not criticising you. I am
4 just saying it went in without objection and it's in the
5 jury bundle at the moment.
6 MR MANSFIELD: In fact it didn't go in without objection
7 because I objected straightaway once you had risen.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You didn't object to me.
9 MR MANSFIELD: No, I didn't, because in fact it would have
10 resulted in further delay on that day and I apologise
11 for not raising it immediately.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I could have been brought back as
13 I was for complaints about one of the television
14 programmes. Anyway, let us not get into that.
15 MR MANSFIELD: So the position is, in my submission, that
16 this should be withdrawn from the bundle with
17 an explanation that it has gone in prematurely and it
18 went in without consent because we had not given consent
19 about it. I don't know what the position of other
20 parties is, but as far as we are concerned -- and that
21 is those of us who act for Mohamed Al Fayed -- it's most
22 unfortunate that it went in. If it's my fault that it
23 went in without formal objection at 5 o'clock, I take
24 responsibility, but I did make objection at 5.05 to
25 those that represent you, and it has been clear

7

1 throughout the weekend -- and in fact, if I may say so,
2 it would appear, even yesterday, that Mr Burnett may not
3 have known himself that it had gone into the jury bundle
4 because I was asking constantly "Has it gone into the
5 jury bundle?" That is what I was asking. I was not
6 given an answer to that until the end of yesterday,
7 which was Tuesday.
8 So I may be forgiven for perhaps not taking, as it
9 were, the point until now. It may be late in the day in
10 the sense that the horse has bolted and therefore the
11 jury have seen it --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But I don't really see the
13 problem because the evidence was given orally anyway and
14 then the document, which says exactly the same thing,
15 went before the jury.
16 MR MANSFIELD: I am so sorry, the evidence that was given
17 orally wasn't that the witness said "I know what the
18 Prime Minister said" or that "I can agree that it's
19 right or wrong". He is not in a position to deal with
20 it. He has not got, any more than anybody else has
21 outside the security services, material to deal with
22 this. So it can't theoretically go in as a document for
23 the jury to consider in their bundle just because it has
24 been put to a witness any more than any other document.
25 So, for example, if you have a statement from

8

1 a potential witness who is not being called, it doesn't
2 automatically go into the jury bundle at the end of the
3 day just because it has been put to a witness. This is
4 very much --
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So your point is it hasn't been
6 proved strictly in accordance with the law; is that
7 right? You are not challenging, at this stage, the
8 truth of the statement in the document, you are simply
9 saying that the document hasn't been properly proved?
10 MR MANSFIELD: No, sir, it's the other way around.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You are challenging the truth of
12 the statement?
13 MR MANSFIELD: Yes.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I thought you weren't. You were
15 saying you don't know one way or the other.
16 MR MANSFIELD: I don't know one way or the other, therefore
17 how can I be in a position to deal with it one way or
18 the other any more than you do? You don't know what the
19 truth of it is; you don't know what the documentation
20 is. What we all know is that the intelligence services
21 pick their words very carefully indeed, and I am looking
22 very carefully at how it's been put.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Isn't the question ultimately the
24 correct way of proving statements made in Parliament?
25 MR MANSFIELD: No. If I may say so, the issue that I am

9

1 concerned about here is whether -- at the end of the
2 day, the underlying is question is: was there
3 an investigation by the security services? What was the
4 result? In my submission, it's fairly clear there must
5 have been.
6 Now, if it wasn't the security services, as the
7 implication is, then who was it? They must know, and
8 it's not a problem to reveal it because it's not
9 anything to do with security services. This has never
10 been gone into publicly. There have been various
11 statements made by people over the years, but actually
12 the underlying truth about the matter, which we --
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So you don't know whether what
14 the Prime Minister said was true or not true, but you
15 want to explore it in detail to see if it wasn't true?
16 MR MANSFIELD: To see if it was true. It's not as though,
17 in fact, there is no material relating to this. Three
18 of your witnesses firmly believe a completely different
19 situation, and I don't put it beyond that. In fact one
20 of them originally was saying "I know".
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well belief and knowledge may be
22 a different matter.
23 MR MANSFIELD: They may be, but nobody, unless they are on
24 the inside of the security services, would actually
25 know, any more than I do. Therefore, for this to be put

10

1 forward as truth of what it says, at this stage, is no
2 better, no worse, as I say, than the question that
3 precedes it, which is saying the opposite. Therefore,
4 the issue here is: what was going on in 1992/1993 and
5 thereafter and who was intercepting because -- or
6 monitoring or whatever it was -- because there are
7 various different ways of monitoring a phone call.
8 This is a phone call not like Camillagate, that took
9 place from a royal premises, namely Sandringham.
10 Therefore -- and of course you have a report that we
11 have provided from Mr Nelson in relation to this issue,
12 and it has been canvassed on many occasions and no-one
13 has ever said, "Look, it's not us. I can tell you who
14 it is and who it was", because if it was not the
15 security services under some form of authority, then it
16 was certainly somebody without authority and a very
17 serious criminal offence has been committed.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So is your point again, "We are
19 not happy with what the Prime Minister. We want to go
20 behind all that"?
21 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, and we are entitled to if this is going
22 to be put. If it is not going to be put and no reliance
23 is going to be placed on this -- and I am entitled on
24 behalf of Mohamed Al Fayed, on behalf of anybody -- to
25 say, "Well, you say that. Please may we see the

11

1 materials upon which this statement is based?" That's
2 a perfectly reasonable -- we are not supposed, if I may
3 say so, where there is material suggesting the opposite,
4 to say, "You say that, that's fine, end of story".
5 Sir, that's why we are concerned, and we have
6 co-operated on all fronts at all times with all
7 documents, and this one, I am afraid, took everyone by
8 surprise, particularly when nobody knew whether it had
9 actually gone into the jury bundle until late yesterday
10 and then we were told, in fact, it went in on the
11 Thursday. So this, we say, wasn't something that hadn't
12 been in somebody's mind to do on Thursday without notice
13 to us. That's what happened, and we would ask for this
14 matter to be remedied by its removal, the jury being
15 told that it's premature and that there will be evidence
16 in relation to this.
17 Now, if the Prime Minister doesn't wish to come or
18 you don't wish to call him in relation to this issue,
19 then somebody, at some stage, has to be in a position to
20 deal with what actually happened, and you have evidence
21 that the jury have heard that they will have to consider
22 what happened in this particular case, because, if I may
23 say, so we find ourselves very much in the position of
24 Princess Diana; namely whenever something like this is
25 raised, we just don't get the answers and they are

12

1 marginalised.
2 We would say this cannot be marginalised in the way
3 that she was never taken seriously about other matters.
4 This is an extremely serious matter, and that is why it
5 was being raised in the House of Commons in the first
6 place -- in fact, not on that day, but on an earlier
7 day -- and I believe in the House of Lords as well and
8 elsewhere. So it has been canvassed but the source of
9 this has never been identified, and we would submit it's
10 of extreme importance.
11 May I say one final matter on this? The security
12 services may say, "Nothing to do with us", but actually
13 what would be interesting to know is who actually did it
14 and who they were related to. That's the key question
15 and that has never been canvassed. We say it's directly
16 relevant to what we say was going on in 1997. I think
17 I have made my position clear.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That seems to be to me a fairly
19 big bridge, but we have been extending the ambit of the
20 inquest very widely in order to deal with a whole
21 variety of suggestions.
22 MR MANSFIELD: Well, I have made my position clear.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Does anybody else want to add to
24 that? Mr Keen or ...?
25 MR CROXFORD: Just two sentences, please, sir. Your counsel

13

1 introduced this statement by the Prime Minister because
2 presumably it was seen to be relevant to an issue. The
3 statement by the Prime Minister was not a statement of
4 his own personal knowledge but a conclusory statement of
5 opinion or understanding. The relevant issue was
6 expressly who had intercepted. In those circumstances,
7 having listened to the debate between you and
8 Mr Mansfield, I would respectfully characterise the
9 outcome as this: that since the issue was relevant as
10 noted by your counsel and since the statement was merely
11 conclusory, your counsel has identified, sir, and you
12 have identified, a line of inquiry as to a relevant
13 issue, namely the material upon which the Prime Minister
14 of the day relied. I am obliged.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Any submissions from the
16 Metropolitan Police?
17 MR MACLEOD: Sir, I have had no notice of it until I have
18 heard Mr Mansfield's submissions to you, so I have
19 nothing to add at this stage.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you. Mr Burnett?
21 MR BURNETT: Sir, as you know, I wasn't personally here on
22 Thursday after 4.30, so I am not in a position to talk
23 about the precise circumstances in which this happened.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No, I have looked at the
25 transcript.

14

1 MR BURNETT: Sir, it is perhaps not very fruitful to get
2 into the whys and wherefores of precisely how this has
3 occurred or whether it should have been done in the
4 circumstances. It's perhaps right that we should remind
5 you and others that the question of official denials in
6 Parliament was raised with Mr Wharfe as well on
7 9th January 2008 by my learned friend, Mr Hilliard.
8 Sir, so far as this issue generally is concerned, as
9 you are well aware, we have not yet reached that stage
10 of the inquests where the relevant witnesses are likely
11 to be available, and that is something that is yet to
12 come.
13 Sir, it's right also that everyone should be aware,
14 as I know my learned friends are, that this was not the
15 only parliamentary outing on this point. The answer
16 that my learned friend Mr Hough put to Commander Jephson
17 last week and the one that was referred to by
18 Mr Hilliard on 9th January was a written answer from the
19 Prime Minister. Within that answer there is a reference
20 back to an earlier answer made by the Heritage
21 Secretary.
22 Sir, I am aware that there was also reference to
23 this matter in an oral exchange in the House of Lords
24 a little later, involving the then Minister of State at
25 the Home Office, Earl Ferris. Sir, it's no doubt right

15

1 to anticipate that those matters are going to be looked
2 at by you in due course.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
4 MR BURNETT: Sir, it would seem to us, respectfully, that to
5 withdraw the answer from the bundle now is likely to be
6 a sterile exercise.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It does seem to me to be a bit of
8 a storm in a teacup, all this, because the matter was
9 read out, again without objection at that stage, and it
10 seemed to me that it would be sensible if there was
11 a short document dealing with the situation; that rather
12 than the jury having to scratch their memories about it,
13 they might like to have it in the bundle.
14 If issues of admissibility and so forth are going to
15 be relevant, when we have heard the whole of the
16 evidence on this topic, then the jury can be directed
17 about it, and, if necessary, it can be taken away. It
18 went in without objection and it seems to me that there
19 it stays for the present time.
20 MR BURNETT: There may be an anxiety on the part of my
21 learned friend or those who instruct him that, as it
22 were, that answer is the beginning and end of the matter
23 so far as you are concerned and these inquests are
24 concerned.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think it's unlikely to be the

16

1 end of the matter.
2 MR BURNETT: Indeed, sir.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield, do you want to add
4 anything?
5 MR MANSFIELD: No, thank you.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The document remains in the jury
7 bundle for the time being, but I will obviously keep the
8 position under review and give the jury any direction
9 that may turn out to be necessary when we have heard the
10 whole of the evidence on this topic.
11 (10.20 am)
12 (Jury present)
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, I am sorry
14 you have been kept. There was a short legal issue that
15 I had to deal with, with counsel. That's now been dealt
16 with and we can continue with the evidence.
17 The first witness is Professor Vanezis.
18 PROFESSOR PETER VANEZIS (sworn)
19 Questions from MR HILLIARD
20 MR HILLIARD: Is it Peter Vanezis?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Do you want to sit or stand?
23 A. I would prefer to sit.
24 Q. By all means. It's "Professor", is that right?
25 A. That's correct, yes.

17

1 Q. Can you help us, please, with your occupation?
2 A. I am a professor of forensic medicine and director of
3 the Cameron Centre for Forensic Medical Sciences, based
4 at Barts and the London, part of the University of
5 London.
6 Q. Can you help us, please, shortly with a bit about your
7 experience over the years?
8 A. Yes, indeed. I have been a forensic pathologist
9 continuously in full employment since 1974, and in that
10 time, as a forensic pathologist, I have dealt with
11 murder cases, suspicious deaths, routine coroners'
12 cases, cases for the defence and prosecution. I have
13 also given opinion in terms of interpretation of
14 injuries. I have done some clinical forensic medicine
15 as well and other matters relating to my speciality.
16 Q. If we can turn next to your involvement in this case,
17 Professor. I am looking at a witness statement that you
18 made on 27th May 2005. Do you have a copy of that
19 there?
20 A. This is to the Paget --
21 Q. That's right.
22 A. Yes, indeed, yes.
23 Q. You helpfully set out the background there and you say
24 this:
25 "On 2nd September of 1997, I was requested by

18

1 Mr John Macnamara, the director of security at Harrods,
2 on behalf of Mr Mohamed Al Fayed, and also representing
3 the solicitors of Henri Paul's family, to carry out
4 a further post-mortem examination on Henri Paul."
5 You explain who he is.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So that's what you were asked to do on the 2nd; is that
8 right?
9 A. That's quite correct, yes.
10 Q. As a result of that request, you went to Paris on
11 2nd September; is that right?
12 A. I did, yes.
13 Q. You left without -- we will look at the circumstances --
14 having conducted the post-mortem examination on
15 5th September; is that right?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. So that was your first involvement. I just want to get
18 the chronology, if we can. Then is this right, that,
19 since then, you have written a number of reports about
20 aspects of this case, either on your own or with others?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And "with others" includes, I think, Professor Shepherd,
23 who we heard from the other day; the two of you wrote
24 a joint report?
25 A. We did, yes.

19

1 Q. I am sure you follow that coming, as you do, after
2 Professors Forrest and Shepherd, I will not go through
3 all the ground that's common between you.
4 A. Quite.
5 Q. If we can just return to the Paris visit, and if you
6 have the May 2005 statement there, you went, I think,
7 first of all -- is this right -- to the Ritz Hotel in
8 Paris on the 2nd?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. You were told that you wouldn't in fact be allowed to
11 carry out a further post-mortem examination on Mr Paul?
12 A. That's correct, yes.
13 Q. You were given to understand that the reason for that
14 was because of rules and protocols within the French
15 legal system?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. You found that rather surprising in the circumstances;
18 is that right?
19 A. I did, yes.
20 Q. But whilst you were in Paris, did you have a number of
21 meetings with advocates representing both Mr Al Fayed
22 and Henri Paul's family?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. You were briefed on the findings, is this right, of
25 Professor Lecomte, who carried out the post-mortem

20

1 examination?
2 A. I was, yes.
3 Q. I think, whilst you were in Paris, you were given a copy
4 of her post-mortem report.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I don't know whether you have a copy of our bundle of
7 documents? It runs to 87 pages.
8 A. I haven't in front of me.
9 Q. I shall give you one. We have the post-mortem report
10 there and I want to know whether that's the same, more
11 than or less than you were given.
12 A. Certainly. (Handed) Thank you very much.
13 Q. That, as you will see from the bundle, begins at page 1
14 and you can see that it runs through to 12 pages. There
15 were some parts added at the end, lists of samples, but
16 12 pages including the drawing at the end.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was that what you were given a copy of when you were in
19 Paris; do you remember?
20 A. To the best of my recollection, it was certainly
21 something similar to this, yes.
22 Q. Right, and could well have been that?
23 A. Could well have been, yes.
24 Q. Whilst you were in Paris at this time -- again I am
25 looking at your statement, Professor -- you say that you

21

1 were shown the toxicology reports of Dr Pepin.
2 A. I was, yes.
3 Q. Can you help us with what you were shown at that time,
4 when you were in Paris? So this is some time between
5 the 2nd and the 5th; that follows, doesn't it?
6 A. Yes, it was. I believe I was -- I can't remember the
7 exact document, but I believe that I was shown
8 a document which stated the concentration of alcohol
9 that was present in Henri Paul's body.
10 Q. Will you have copies of the documents or will somebody
11 have copies of the documents that you were given at the
12 time?
13 A. I am sure someone will have copies of those documents in
14 order to verify it.
15 Q. Could you find those for us or ask somebody to do it,
16 not now, but in due course?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. Is this right, that when in Paris you
19 recommended that opinion should be sought from
20 toxicology experts and a further forensic pathology
21 expert?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. When you were in Paris, did you also ask that further
24 samples be taken and tested by an independent
25 laboratory?

22

1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You say in your statement that that was refused --
3 A. It was, yes.
4 Q. -- although, as you know, Professor Ricordel is said to
5 have conducted another test on one of 31st August blood
6 samples and then there was the subsequent procedure on
7 4th September.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You say in your statement that you were told that the
10 body had been gone back to and that samples were taken
11 on 4th September from what you describe as a "peripheral
12 site".
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You say you believe that that was one of the femoral
15 veins.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you know, were you actually told that that had
18 happened on the 4th?
19 A. I was informed at some stage that this was going to
20 happen. I can't remember the exact date on which I was
21 told that this happened.
22 Q. Just looking at the way you put it in your statement, it
23 looks as if you were told that it had happened, not just
24 that it was going to; is that right?
25 A. Yes, I believe that was the case.

23

1 Q. Professor, again, I think you are aware of this, that
2 photographs were taken on 31st August and 4th September
3 of the procedures that took place then.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is this right, so far as you are aware, there is
6 absolutely no issue but that the body shown in the
7 photographs is Henri Paul?
8 A. This is what I was informed of, yes.
9 Q. What I mean is this: you have been with the case since
10 1997. Nobody has ever suggested to you, "And another
11 thing, it's not Henri Paul in the photographs", have
12 they?
13 A. No, that's correct, yes.
14 Q. So back you came to London on 5th September of 1997?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. On that day, is this right, you attended a press
17 conference -- that was the Friday -- at Harrods?
18 A. Yes, correct.
19 Q. I just want to have a look at one or two aspects of that
20 with you. I dare say you are not going to have a copy
21 of the transcript, but I will just provide you with one.
22 (Handed) It began, Professor -- we have heard about
23 this already -- with a statement from Michael Cole,
24 didn't it?
25 A. Yes.

24

1 Q. Then if you turn on, please, to page 7, in the course of
2 the press conference, CCTV film was shown, wasn't it?
3 A. Yes, I believe it was, yes.
4 Q. You were present there when it was shown, but had you
5 had an opportunity to look at it before this press
6 conference?
7 A. I am trying to think very carefully about whether I had
8 seen it in the Ritz before or whether I'd seen it for
9 the first time at the press conference and I can't
10 honestly remember.
11 Q. It's difficult to say now, all right. If you just look
12 at page 7, the film that was being shown, certainly that
13 you saw at this, included film of Mr Paul arriving back
14 at the Ritz after he had come back from being off duty
15 in his vehicle; yes?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I think it was Mr Handley-Greaves speaking -- it was --
18 at this time, who said:
19 "We have tried to include as many sequences as
20 possible to demonstrate M Henri Paul's demeanour on the
21 night in question."
22 There are then, aren't there, references to film of
23 his movements and of Henri Paul speaking with people and
24 so on?
25 A. (Witness nods).

25

1 Q. If you turn, please, to page 8, Mr Handley-Greaves said,
2 didn't he:
3 "We're just trying to demonstrate the fact that this
4 man did not have 175 mls of alcohol ... [in shorthand].
5 This man would be lurching all over the place, he
6 clearly isn't."
7 That's what Mr Handley-Greaves said, isn't it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If we turn to page 10, did Mr Michael Cole say this?
10 "Allow me now to introduce Professor Peter Vanezis.
11 I'm very grateful to him because he's come to this press
12 conference. He was due to be on a plane to Glasgow.
13 He's missed that because of the importance and
14 seriousness of this matter here. The professor is the
15 Regis Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University
16 of Glasgow. For the last two days [he] has been in
17 Paris and I would like you to pay close attention to
18 what he has to say now."
19 Then you said this:
20 "Ladies and gentlemen, I was requested by
21 Mr Al Fayed to travel to Paris in light of the
22 allegation that the autopsy on Mr Henri Paul concluded
23 that there was a high level of alcohol in his blood.
24 I was asked to provide an entirely objective analysis.
25 I did not have access to the body and therefore did not

26

1 conduct my own autopsy. I was, however, allowed to
2 review the contents of the autopsy report of the
3 pathologist. Sampling of various body tissues for
4 analysis and specifically the blood present
5 difficulties, especially when the body has been
6 traumatised. Although a high level of alcohol was
7 reported, it was found in only one blood sample, which
8 was divided into two and examined by two different
9 laboratories. The report does not indicate that any of
10 the other blood samples or body tissues were analysed to
11 confirm or refute the findings in the one sample
12 examined."
13 Just pausing there, Professor, was that really your
14 main concern at that time as expressed at the
15 conference, that there had only been one sample analysed
16 and that other blood samples or samples from body
17 tissues hadn't yet been looked at?
18 A. Yes, I mean, that was the information I had, and my
19 concern was that, on the analysis of one blood sample
20 and one result that was obtained, that this was then
21 made public without it having been confirmed and also
22 having been taken from a part of the body which was,
23 shall we say, at its kindest, sub-optimal.
24 Q. Right. Although at this time, of course, where did you
25 understand the sample had come from?

27

1 A. The heart.
2 Q. Right. You went on to say:
3 "In my view, given that Mr Paul died a violent death
4 with extensive internal injuries, the possibility of
5 contamination of the blood is a real one and must be
6 seriously considered. Therefore, under such
7 circumstances, an isolated finding, as has been reported
8 to the press, cannot be treated as reliable."
9 That's really the same point.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That's the point you are making?
12 A. Indeed.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You can't jump to conclusions on
14 what's happened up until now that we know about?
15 A. That's quite correct, sir, yes.
16 MR HILLIARD: You went on to say, at the bottom of the page,
17 that:
18 "Seriously damaged internal organs can make blood
19 difficult to obtain, and even if you get it, it can be
20 contaminated with stomach contents, liver contents ...",
21 and so on.
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Then if you turn over, please, to page 11, it looks as
24 if there was a question from the audience that couldn't
25 quite be heard, but it appeared to be about other

28

1 samples that had been taken, not just the one sample of
2 blood that had been analysed, because your answer was
3 this:
4 "Approximately, yes. There were four other samples
5 in the report, four other blood samples. A sample from
6 the eye, from the fluid of the eye, a sample of urine
7 taken, a sample from the gall bladder or bile, and it's
8 not reported that any of these other samples were
9 tested. I don't know whether they were tested. It was
10 not in the report that was presented to the prosecuting
11 authorities."
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Then you were asked about:
14 "Would [those samples] still be acceptable to you?"
15 You said this:
16 "It depends very much on how they are stored and I'm
17 particularly worried about how the blood was obtained
18 and stored in the first instance, but certainly we're
19 talking about fluid from the eye, that would be pretty
20 reliable, and also the urine would be pretty useful as
21 well."
22 Yes?
23 A. Yes, indeed.
24 Q. Is that right, that in trying to look at the whole
25 picture, you have got results from analysis of one blood

29

1 sample first of all, but was it your view that fluid
2 from the eye, that that would be pretty reliable and
3 that it would also be useful if you got a result from
4 the urine as well, to look at the three together?
5 A. Yes, the reason being that obviously fluid from the eye
6 is in a contained area which is relatively free from
7 contamination, particularly in a traumatised person, as
8 is the urine if the bladder hasn't been traumatised.
9 Q. Right. You talk, towards the bottom of this page, about
10 the methods that had been used to conduct the test. You
11 said that that was within the domain of the toxicologist
12 and that you had spoken to a professor of toxicology.
13 Can you remember who that was?
14 A. I think it was a chap called Wenig from Luxembourg,
15 I believe. I think we contacted him in the first
16 instance, yes.
17 Q. Right, and you said this:
18 "... the methodology that was used appears pretty
19 routine, that would be used in any labs."
20 A. Yes, indeed, and that's where the limit of my expertise
21 finishes, in terms of examination with equipment in
22 laboratories.
23 Q. Just finally, please, Professor, page 12. You were
24 asked this question:
25 "What's your view on the way the French authorities

30

1 have dealt with this?"
2 The way you put it at that time was this:
3 "I think to a certain extent it's early days yet.
4 It may be that that analysis has probably been given out
5 a little bit prematurely and I don't know whether they
6 are going to carry out any further tests so I really
7 can't comment any further on that."
8 That was your view at the time and still is?
9 A. Yes, yes, indeed.
10 Q. All right.
11 So those were some of the issues, is this right,
12 that you had already got in mind as early as the 5th?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. Then if we look, please, at the first report that you
15 completed. It's dated 5th December 1997. Do you have
16 a copy of that? If you have not, I have one.
17 A. It's probably quicker if you actually give me a copy.
18 Q. Yes. (Handed) You and I will be working off the same
19 pages as well.
20 A. Exactly. Thank you.
21 Q. Now, if you turn to the last page, this is, in fact --
22 is this right -- the report of a number of people;
23 a Professor Krompecher. Who was he?
24 A. He is a Professor of Forensic Medicine at the
25 University of Lausanne.

31

1 Q. Then Professor ...?
2 A. Mangin.
3 Q. What's he?
4 A. He is also a Professor of Forensic Medicine, but also
5 has an interest in toxicology, at the University of
6 Lausanne as well.
7 Q. Then Dr Oliver. Who was he?
8 A. Dr Oliver is actually now "Professor John Oliver". He
9 was my colleague at the University of Glasgow at the
10 time.
11 Q. And his particular expertise?
12 A. He is a forensic toxicologist.
13 Q. And then yourself --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- the other signatory.
16 If we can just look at the information that you had
17 available to you at this time and then see what the
18 expert conclusions were. Did the report begin in this
19 way -- I don't know, sir, whether you have a copy in the
20 bundle. If you have not, I have a spare. (Handed)
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
22 MR HILLIARD: The report begins like this:
23 "Following preliminary view by one of us ..."
24 And that was you, Professor?
25 A. Yes.

32

1 Q. "... of the autopsy report soon after its release on
2 3rd September 1997 and toxicological investigations that
3 were available at the time, it was felt that these
4 results were inadequate and that it was necessary to
5 have full access to the final autopsy report and
6 comprehensive toxicological investigations."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. "These were forthcoming in November 1997."
9 So if we pause for a moment. In the month before
10 the report was signed by you all, it follows from this
11 that you had had the final autopsy report and what were
12 thought to be comprehensive toxicological investigations
13 or records of them.
14 A. Yes. This was the information that we had at the time,
15 and we were led to believe that that was all the
16 information that was available, the final autopsy
17 report, and that the toxicology findings were
18 comprehensive findings.
19 Q. Yes. It would follow -- you speak here of comprehensive
20 toxicological investigations. Had you got the documents
21 that related to each of the -- for any result, would you
22 have the documents that related to it?
23 A. In terms of the mechanics of how the toxicology was
24 carried out, I would defer to my colleague,
25 Professor Oliver, for that information. But it was

33

1 certainly available to all of us to look at, at the
2 meetings that we had.
3 Q. All right. You mean precisely as to what it meant, he
4 is the person to ask --
5 A. Exactly.
6 Q. -- but in terms of, when it says here "comprehensive
7 toxicological investigations", it means what it says,
8 that's what you got?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Right. These were forthcoming in November 1997, and as
11 a result a meeting took place at the Chambers of
12 Mr Hodge Malek in Gray's Inn on 12th November 1997 to
13 discuss the findings. Mr Hodge Malek was a barrister
14 who was representing Mr Al Fayed at the time; is that
15 right?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. You say that two pathologists and two toxicologists, and
18 that's Professors Krompecher and Mangin from Lausanne
19 and yourself and Professor Oliver from Glasgow, were
20 shown the full autopsy report and toxicology results and
21 examined them in the presence of a French lawyer
22 representing the family of Henri Paul and Mr Malek
23 representing Mr Al Fayed.
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. So that's the background to this first report that was

34

1 produced. You say this, that:
2 "The pathologists at the conference ..."
3 That's yourself and Mr Krompecher?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. "... were of the opinion that the post-mortem report was
6 satisfactory for a road traffic accident."
7 That's the one that Professor Lecomte had carried
8 out on 31st August 1997.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Is that still your view, that the post-mortem report in
11 that respect was satisfactory?
12 A. In that respect, in relation to the pathological
13 findings and the procedures of external and internal
14 examination, yes.
15 Q. Cause of death and so on?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Yes. You then deal with some passages that cover
18 injuries to Henri Paul in the report; is that right?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. You go on to say very early on, Professor, top of
21 page 2:
22 "It was noted from the report that there are no
23 references as to where blood samples were taken from,
24 although in later documents it appeared that the first
25 samples were taken from the heart."

35

1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Now, do you know what you were referring to when you
3 said "... in later documents it appeared that the first
4 samples were taken from the heart"?
5 A. I believe we were shown some documents actually which
6 stated where she had actually taken the samples from.
7 I can't remember which these documents are, but they
8 were certainly not within the actual post-mortem report
9 itself.
10 Q. I don't know -- if you look in that bundle, if you turn
11 to --
12 MR KEEN: Sir, I wonder if my learned friend could clarify
13 which bundle he is referring to.
14 MR HILLIARD: I am looking at the bundle of 87 documents
15 that we put in the other day.
16 MR KEEN: I see. It is just that I understood that to be
17 supplemented by the additional documentation that
18 Professor Forrest had gone to. This is just
19 a miscellaneous bundle of materials taken out of
20 production, as I understand it.
21 MR HILLIARD: It's the bundle that we put in the other day.
22 MR KEEN: It would be helpful, I think, if my learned friend
23 could cross-reference the INQ numbers because we have
24 all the production numbers properly numbered and it
25 would be more convenient.

36

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
2 MR HILLIARD: Certainly.
3 Page 31 in this bundle -- for those of who are
4 troubling to follow with the bundle, it is just easier
5 to look at page number 31, Professor. The INQ number is
6 [INQ0042920] and we will get on with it while that comes
7 up. Can you see that there is a reference there on the
8 blood sample? The printed label says "sang cardiac".
9 Do you see?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. "Cardiac blood"?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is it possible that you would have had access to this by
14 that time because that would certainly lead you to think
15 that the blood had come from the heart, wouldn't it?
16 A. Quite possible, yes.
17 Q. You go on to say, just back to your report:
18 "There are no details in the post-mortem report of
19 the temperature at which the body had been kept, nor
20 precisely when the autopsy had been carried out. In
21 view of the fact that the autopsy had been carried out
22 on the same day as the accident, it's extremely unlikely
23 that these factors would have made a significant
24 difference."
25 A. Correct.

37

1 Q. Is that still your view?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. You then point out, towards the bottom of this page,
4 that:
5 "Samples were taken during the autopsy of blood,
6 urine and various tissues."
7 Yes?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Those purport, at least, don't they, to be the samples
10 in the bottles that, looking through these pages -- 32,
11 33, 34 and so on -- that we have --
12 A. Yes, indeed.
13 Q. Yes. Just so it's clear, if you look, for example, at
14 page 34, that looks as if each one has a different word
15 on it, hasn't it? It looks as if that is saying "foie",
16 which is the French word for "liver", doesn't it?
17 A. Yes, indeed.
18 Q. So you point out that other samples were taken, but you
19 then point out that there is a degree of confusion as to
20 their number and you point out that there are
21 contradictions between the forms that we have at our
22 pages 12, 12A, 13 and 13A; yes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Different numbers of, for example, blood samples given,
25 aren't there, on the forms?

38

1 A. Sure.
2 Q. You say in your report on the next page that:
3 "In view of the level of trauma, damage and loss of
4 blood, it's possible that there may have been difficulty
5 in obtaining uncontaminated samples."
6 Yes?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you remember that Professor Shepherd was talking
9 about -- when we were looking at this question of
10 whether samples had come from blood from the neck; do
11 you remember?
12 A. Yes, I do remember, yes, yes.
13 Q. Do you remember him talking about how, if you were
14 conducting a post-mortem examination, you might not be
15 sure what blood you could get, for example you might
16 take samples from one location when you got them and
17 discard them in due course if you could get better
18 samples from elsewhere; do you remember him talking
19 about that?
20 A. Yes, indeed, and I agree with that.
21 Q. The important thing he said -- and do you agree with
22 this -- that whichever ones are submitted, that
23 everybody knows where they have come from?
24 A. Absolutely.
25 Q. Then if you turn, please, to page 4 of this report, you

39

1 say this:
2 "Samples of blood from the original autopsy [so this
3 is the 31st August 1997 one] were sent to two experts
4 who found as follows ..."
5 Then the very first one that happened, as we know,
6 was Professor Ricordel.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. A reading of 1.87. I will use that as shorthand.
9 A. Yes, indeed, yes.
10 Q. Then the next one was Dr Pepin, 1.74; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think there is a typographical
13 error there.
14 A. There is, yes, sir.
15 MR HILLIARD: That's "Pepin".
16 A. Yes, indeed.
17 Q. So 1.87, 1.74, and it may be just that -- because not
18 everybody has this report -- some of this at least is at
19 page 75 on the summary chart and on the Paget pages 1
20 and 2 chart that we have at the front of the bundle.
21 So 1.87, and 1.74. Do you remember that
22 Professor Forrest said that he didn't think that there
23 was anything of significance or anything troubling about
24 the difference between those two figures; do you
25 remember him saying that?

40

1 A. I remember him saying that, yes.
2 Q. In your report you have said this:
3 "The discrepancy between the two readings is not
4 considered to be material."
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Is that still your view?
7 A. Yes, indeed.
8 Q. Then you deal with results of tests carried out by
9 Dr Pepin on samples taken on 31st August 1997.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You deal with blood, 1.74; yes?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That reading?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Then, for 4th September reading, 1.75; do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Urine, 2.18?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Vitreous humour, 1.73?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And stomach contents, 1.91?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You said this:
24 "These readings all point to the tail-end absorption
25 of fairly recent alcoholic drink."

41

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You say:
3 "This is consistent with M Paul having had drink in
4 the Ritz Hotel prior to the crash."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You say:
7 "It should be ascertained precisely when he drank
8 the two Ricards ..."
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. "... the alcohol strength of the drink and volume of
11 this drink consumed."
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. You went on to say:
14 "The urine reading is consistent with and supporting
15 of the blood readings."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you remember -- we have seen how that was the point
18 you were making at the press conference, that really
19 there was just one result only --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- and now there were a number of results or there
22 certainly purported to be, didn't there?
23 A. That's right, yes.
24 Q. And in particular you have said that reading one
25 supported the two, by now, blood readings -- in fact

42

1 three, I think; yes?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Then you said this:
4 "On the basis of the material provided, the experts
5 consider the alcohol tests are accurate."
6 A. Yes, indeed.
7 Q. That was obviously your view then or you wouldn't have
8 put it in the report.
9 A. Sure.
10 Q. Is that still your view?
11 A. To be perfectly honest with you, I am not -- as I said
12 to you, I am not an expert toxicologist, and obviously
13 we were dealing with this report as a joint report with
14 our toxicology experts and I was guided by my toxicology
15 experts. I feel that that probably is a better question
16 that's put to the toxicologists who are present in the
17 room.
18 Q. But certainly they were telling you, is this right, at
19 that time, that it was their view that the alcohol tests
20 were accurate?
21 A. That's quite correct, yes.
22 Q. There is a section then that deals with the presence of
23 drugs and talks about test results showing the presence
24 of Fluoxetine, which we have heard is Prozac.
25 A. Correct.

43

1 Q. Norfluoxetine, which we have heard is the breakdown
2 product of it.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And then something called Tiapride. I think you have
5 been in court when we have heard evidence that Mr Paul
6 had been prescribed Prozac and Tiapride.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The report says this:
9 "The levels found in the heart blood, the autopsy
10 sample ..."
11 So meaning 31st August?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. It may or may not be heart blood, we now know --
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. -- but certainly talking of the 31st August examination.
16 So the level found in that blood and the femoral blood
17 on 4th September 1997 are consistent.
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. So this was the view, is this right, at that time, that
20 there was no discrepancy between the results for those
21 found on 31st August and on 4th September, such that
22 they couldn't be from the same person or anything like
23 that?
24 A. Correct. There was no discrepancy between the readings.
25 Q. You went on to say that there were readings for the

44

1 presence of these drugs in the urine, spinal cord/brain
2 tissue, but you said the blood results were the most
3 reliable for present purposes.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You said that the level of Fluoxetine was of
6 a therapeutic level.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Tiapride you said was small in the blood.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then you went on to consider the results of hair
11 analysis; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. There is then a section that deals with the
14 interpretation of the toxicological findings.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It begins in this way:
17 "The average man's driving would be severely
18 impaired with the level of alcohol detected."
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "Fluoxetine may or may not have influenced the capacity
21 of a driver."
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. "It's a possible side effect of this drug."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. "It is not believed that the presence of this drug is

45

1 likely to have been a major factor in the present case."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You say:
4 "Tiapride was found in fairly trivial levels in the
5 blood."
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You say that although one side effect of it is
8 drowsiness --
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. -- you say that it's arguable that this can be
11 discounted as a likely factor in the present case.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Then this sentence:
14 "Looking at the overall picture, it may be fairly
15 observed that M Paul had an alcohol problem and he drank
16 high levels of alcohol regularly."
17 Yes?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, that's what the report that the four of you have
20 signed says and it refers to the overall picture.
21 I mean, can you help us? What information had you got
22 that, when you looked at it all, enabled you to say that
23 you thought it was a fair observation that he had
24 an alcohol problem and that he drank high levels of
25 alcohol regularly, because you appreciate that may be

46

1 very important.
2 A. Well, of course, yes. One of the things obviously that
3 we were considering -- and obviously this was very much
4 in the top of our minds -- was whether or not that
5 a person that appeared normal, shall we say, on CCTV
6 images, may well have built up a tolerance to alcohol.
7 At the time that we did this report, we took this
8 together with the results that were available to us in
9 terms of the toxicology that had been carried out. So
10 it was on that basis that we looked at that as -- and we
11 said "It could be fairly looked at that way", so we were
12 giving an opinion which was one view of how this could
13 be examined.
14 Q. There is a figure in brackets "0519", which if, as may
15 be the case, the "0" is a typing mistake and it should
16 be "D1519", that would take us to the document that we
17 have at page 78 in the bundle. The INQ number is
18 [INQ0043321 - read out in court] but that's perhaps less helpful for all of
19 us than page 78 in the bundle.
20 If "01519" is really supposed to be "D1519", that's
21 a reference to this report, do you remember, which dealt
22 with a particular test that was done which it was
23 thought might have some bearing on the question of
24 whether someone had been regularly consuming alcohol
25 to -- perhaps in excess --

47

1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. -- over a period of time. Do you remember the test?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Yes?
5 A. This is the -- it mentions gamma-glutile transferase,
6 a liver enzyme.
7 Q. There is a conclusion at page 83. It's the one that
8 Professor Forrest was telling us about. He told us that
9 in his view it shouldn't actually, he thought, be looked
10 at in isolation because there could be difficulties
11 perhaps with this test when the blood had been taken
12 from a post-mortem sample; do you remember?
13 A. That's right, indeed, yes.
14 Q. Is there anything in particular -- I am just looking at
15 this sentence. Forgive me for worrying away at it.
16 Just back at 20:
17 "Looking at the overall picture, it may be fairly
18 observed that M Paul had an alcohol problem and he drank
19 high levels of alcohol regularly ..."
20 Then perhaps a reference to D1519. I am just
21 wondering whether there was any material, if you think
22 back now, that you had that might help us on that
23 question.
24 A. I think possibly my toxicology colleagues would
25 certainly be able to help you more on that one. All

48

1 I know of at the time is that we looked at this together
2 and that was the conclusion we came to as a group.
3 Q. Right, that that was a fair way of looking at it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You go on to say:
6 "He may have built up a tolerance of the levels of
7 alcohol found."
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We have heard about that from Professor Forrest, and do
10 you agree with that, that, as it were, a regular drinker
11 of alcohol may build up a tolerance in that way?
12 A. Yes, indeed.
13 Q. You say:
14 "There is no doubt that the average man's faculties
15 would have been markedly impaired."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then you say:
18 "A regular heavy drinker like M Paul is likely to
19 have been impaired less."
20 A. Yes, I mean, if someone built up a tolerance and they
21 are said to be regular drinkers in that sense, then that
22 is quite possible, yes.
23 Q. Forgive me, you obviously got it from somewhere --
24 because you say "a regular heavy drinker like M Paul",
25 you had obviously got it from somewhere that he was

49

1 a regular heavy drinker.
2 A. Yes, I think, as I say, when we looked at the toxicology
3 and the CCTV images and looked at it at that stage, that
4 was our opinion. I can't remember exactly how my
5 toxicology colleagues advised me on this and how we
6 brought this all together as a group, but I would really
7 like to defer to them on that particular issue, if
8 I may, please.
9 Q. Certainly.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So you concluded that he was
11 a regular heavy drinker on the basis of some evidence,
12 but you are not quite sure what it was at the moment?
13 A. On the basis of the blood results that we got, sir, and
14 on some of the other tests that were done.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The blood results couldn't
16 tell -- well, I suppose you are saying that it was the
17 blood results coupled with the absence of any appearance
18 of being under the influence of drink; is that right?
19 A. I think the overall picture, sir, was what we were
20 looking at in the case.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Did that include the CDT test?
22 A. I believe it did at that stage, yes.
23 MR HILLIARD: I am just wondering, could part of that --
24 I don't know -- be right, because if the question was
25 you were looking to see whether the results were

50

1 accurate, it wouldn't really do any good, would it, to
2 say, "I have looked at the CCTV film, there is nothing
3 the matter there so he must be a regular heavy drinker
4 for the results to be accurate"? That's what I am
5 struggling with, because if your brief is "Are the
6 results accurate?", it is not much good saying "I will
7 assume the results are accurate"; do you follow? I am
8 not meaning to be difficult, but do you follow the point
9 I am trying to explore with you?
10 A. Yes, I follow the point you are making. All I am saying
11 is that we looked at -- we had -- whatever was at our
12 disposal at the time, which included the toxicology
13 results -- we knew about the CCTV images. We had,
14 I believe, the CDT tests available, and together with
15 our colleagues from Lausanne, that was the view that we
16 came to at that time.
17 Q. All right. Then you go on to say:
18 "M Paul's faculties would have suffered some
19 impairment, but what may be debated is the degree of
20 impairment."
21 A. Yes, indeed.
22 Q. You go on to say this:
23 "It was noted that the video from the Ritz Hotel
24 showed M Paul seemingly walking normally."
25 You say:

51

1 "This is not surprising as a habitual heavy drinker
2 would have built up a degree of tolerance."
3 Is that still your view?
4 A. Yes, it was certainly the view of all of us when we
5 signed this report, yes.
6 Q. You say:
7 "A normal man would have been noticeably affected.
8 Further, for M Paul to be able to behave apparently
9 normally does not mean that he was fit to drive,
10 especially if something extraordinary happened whilst he
11 was driving."
12 So by that you mean, for example, some unexpected
13 occurrence that he has to react to?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. You spell it out:
16 "In such circumstances he may have had difficulties
17 in reacting appropriately."
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Right, nearly through. You then have a section that
20 deals with the presence of carbon monoxide.
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. You say that the reading of 20.7 per cent from the blood
23 taken on 31st August 1997 is significantly high.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Again, do you agree that -- just assume for the purposes

52

1 of the question -- suppose somebody was, as it were,
2 maliciously involved, dishonestly involved, in fiddling
3 results, to put in a result of 20.7 on carbon monoxide
4 would be something that would attract anybody's
5 attention?
6 A. I am sure it would. I mean, as Professor Forrest has
7 said in his evidence, that it does remain inexplicable,
8 the result.
9 Q. It then goes on to say that the sample -- the report
10 does -- on 4th September -- so you deal with the 20.7,
11 31st August, and then you deal with the level of
12 12.8 per cent from the sample taken on the 4th.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Then the report says -- I just want to understand this:
15 "The reduction over time is not surprising."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. By which you meant, what, that assuming that the 20.7
18 had been a genuine finding --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- that over time you might lose some and then get
21 12.8 per cent a few days later?
22 A. Yes. I mean that's certainly what the other experts
23 also believe and, from my experience as well,
24 particularly if the blood is perhaps in less good
25 condition than it was originally, say, maybe slight

53

1 putrefaction coming into the picture, you can get a
2 reduction in carbon monoxide level.
3 Q. That depends upon the first recording being a genuine
4 finding and not -- the word that is sometimes used is
5 an "artefact". So, as it were, some misleading
6 impression that's created by the equipment or something
7 of that kind?
8 A. Yes, indeed.
9 Q. The point you make is that the source of levels of
10 carbon monoxide should be ascertained.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Enquiries, you say, should be made about that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You also say that blood samples from others who were in
15 the vehicle again should, for obvious reasons, be
16 examined for carbon monoxide to see if they were the
17 same or different. You make that point.
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. You say that Dr Pepin should be asked to explain the
20 significance of the carbon monoxide readings.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Then, in your conclusions, you say this:
23 "The alcohol readings are likely to be accurate and
24 there is no perceived benefit in challenging them at
25 this stage. As further witness evidence and test

54

1 results appear in the dossier, it may be appropriate to
2 consider this aspect further."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You say that the presence of drugs don't appear likely
5 to have been a significant factor --
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. -- and that the presence of carbon monoxide at such
8 an elevated level is significant and needs further
9 investigation.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Right. So that was the very first report you made, and
12 thereafter you made a number of other reports dealing,
13 on occasions, again -- is this right -- with the
14 question of carbon monoxide and those readings?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I don't think there is anything we are going to need to
17 look at in the detail of it, but, for example, on
18 17th November 1998 you deal again with the question of
19 carbon monoxide. You deal with the level that is likely
20 to be found in smokers; do you remember that
21 Professor Forrest raised that question?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. Are you the best person to deal with that or someone who
24 is following?
25 A. Someone who is following.

55

1 Q. That's all right. Then you completed a report -- do you
2 remember -- on 4th February 1999.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Again you dealt, in that report, with the question of
5 carbon monoxide. Do you remember?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I am just looking at that. Again is probably
8 Professor Oliver going to be the best person to deal
9 with that?
10 A. I think so, yes, indeed.
11 Q. All right. We will pass through that with you as well.
12 Just on that topic, just in general terms -- we will ask
13 him more about it -- but were you aware that the
14 question was being considered as to whether or quite how
15 the carbon monoxide level could have arisen and whether,
16 in fact, it had been some sort of artefact, so something
17 in the measuring process that had gone wrong?
18 A. Yes, I am certainly aware of that, yes indeed.
19 Q. We have heard about a report that was completed on
20 Mr Al Fayed's behalf in 2001 that had referred to
21 a study by somebody called Winek. Do you remember we
22 heard about that with Professor Forrest?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. That's the kind of issue you were aware of?
25 A. Yes, indeed.

56

1 Q. Then 8th December 2000, [INQ0019509], you and others
2 completed a report just in these terms. I will just
3 read it out. It's only a paragraph but we will see what
4 the point is, Professor. You said this:
5 "We are led to believe that body samples taken from
6 the body of Henri Paul before, during and following the
7 autopsy are still preserved. As set out in our earlier
8 report, there are a number of important issues and
9 questions that remain unanswered relating to the
10 post-mortem conducted into the death of Henri Paul.
11 Indeed, the inconsistencies are such that we cannot
12 at present be satisfied that the samples apparently
13 tested are indeed those of Henri Paul. In fact, we have
14 previously expressed grave reservations.
15 "We have proposed full independent testing of all
16 remaining samples and we hereby reiterate that
17 suggestion. It is essential that all aforementioned
18 remaining body samples continue to be preserved for
19 independent examination and testing."
20 Post-mortemThat's what you were saying in that
21 report?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Professor, we don't perhaps need to go through the
24 details of it all, but we heard from Professors Forrest
25 and Shepherd criticisms of the way sampling had been

57

1 carried out, exhibits had been labelled, records had
2 been kept and so on.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. No discourtesy to you, but simply because we have had it
5 all from them, we don't need to go through it all again.
6 Do you share the criticisms, reservations, hesitations
7 and so on that they expressed?
8 A. Very much so.
9 Q. I don't know whether you can answer this question or
10 again whether you feel it's a better question for one of
11 the experts who follows, but in the light of the results
12 from a range of samples said to have come from
13 Henri Paul, so Pepin doing the blood from the 31st,
14 Professor Ricordel apparently doing blood from the 31st,
15 Pepin from 4th September, the results for the stomach
16 and so on, if -- if -- obviously it's an "if" that the
17 jury will have to consider -- if those results were
18 honestly and accurately reported, at least -- yes?
19 A. Mm.
20 Q. -- and related to samples that had come from
21 Henri Paul --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- in your view, does that mean, subject to those
24 questions, that one could be confident that the alcohol
25 level mentioned in the order of twice the limit in this

58

1 country was a correct one, if those had all come from
2 him?
3 A. Yes, I mean, what you are asking is actually quite
4 a complex question --
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. -- and it requires quite a lot of explanation. I feel
7 that one needs to put this to the toxicologists who have
8 gone through all the different measurements with, you
9 know, a lot of depth, rather than myself.
10 Q. Again, so far as the question is concerned as to who the
11 samples came from -- Professor Forrest, do you remember,
12 dealt with the question really; that was a matter for
13 the jury, to look at all the different pieces of
14 evidence, the discrepancies, the similarities and so on.
15 Is that your view as well?
16 A. I entirely agree with that, yes.
17 Q. Perhaps, finally, just this then, Professor: in the
18 joint report that I have already referred to that you
19 completed in July of last year with
20 Professor Shepherd --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- you referred to the samples that had been taken on
23 4th September, the ones -- do you remember -- by
24 Dr Campana?
25 A. Yes.

59

1 Q. The way you put it was this -- if you want just to check
2 I have it right, it's page 6 of 12 in that joint report.
3 It's your (ix), Professor, if you and I have the same
4 pages. You said:
5 "The samples taken on 4th September of 1997 have
6 been labelled and documented with much greater care."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is that still your view?
9 A. Sorry, (ix)?
10 Q. Sorry, (xi), forgive me. So you said those ones taken
11 on 4th September -- so that's from the femoral area,
12 Scarpa's Triangle -- do you remember you said that those
13 had been labelled and documented with much greater care?
14 A. Yes, that's based on the information that we were given,
15 yes, indeed.
16 Q. The label, I think, on the bottle still refers to
17 "cardiac blood", but do you remember there is the
18 overwriting in hand "FD" and "FG", for "femoral droit"
19 and "femoral gauche"?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much indeed, Professor.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will break off for our
23 mid-morning break at this stage.
24 (11.25 am)
25 (A short break)

60

1 (11.40 am)
2 (Jury present)
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
4 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, sir. May I just make the position
5 clear? I was going to ask this witness about the death
6 of James Andanson. You will have seen there is
7 a separate report that he has done on that. However,
8 it's been agreed that since there is other evidence
9 I think listed for next week in relation to this issue,
10 that I defer this until next week. I have had the
11 opportunity and permission from Mr Hilliard, kindly,
12 just to speak quickly to the professor, which is a bit
13 abnormal, but it was merely to ascertain whether there
14 had been, up until now, any liaison between him and
15 Dr Shepherd, who is also potentially dealing with the
16 issue. Apparently there hasn't. The suggestion that we
17 are making is that perhaps between now and next week,
18 the experts could, as it were, liaise to distill what is
19 agreed and what is not.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That might be sensible.
21 Mr Weekes?
22 MR WEEKES: Sir, it's somewhat embarrassing, but Mr Keen,
23 I am sure, is on his way and would be terribly surprised
24 if I started without him, but at the moment we are
25 short-staffed, sir. I do apologise. (Pause)

61

1 MR KEEN: My apologies, sir, for delaying everyone.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I thought perhaps you had given
3 up!
4 MR KEEN: That might have been inferred, sir, but you can
5 only run so far and you can't hide.
6 Questions from MR KEEN
7 MR KEEN: Professor, what I would like to begin by doing is
8 looking first of all at your qualifications and
9 experience.
10 My reason for doing so may become apparent a little
11 later. To take your qualifications briefly, you are
12 a Bachelor of Medicine and of Surgery?
13 A. Sir.
14 Q. You are qualified in medical jurisprudence?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You are a member of the Royal College of Pathologists?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You are also a Doctor of Medicine, an MD?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. A Doctor of Philosophy?
21 A. I am, yes.
22 Q. A fellow of the Royal College of Physicians?
23 A. Glasgow.
24 Q. And a fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal
25 Medicine?

62

1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You indicated that you are presently the professor of
3 forensic medical science and director of Cameron
4 Forensic Medical Sciences at Barts and the
5 London Hospital. That's part at the University of
6 London.
7 A. That's correct, yes.
8 Q. Is that an appointment you took up, having been Regis
9 Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of
10 Glasgow until 2003, and thereafter, from 2003 until
11 2006, the chief forensic medical officer and head of the
12 Department of Forensic Medical Sciences for the Forensic
13 Science Service?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. You are also, I understand, the senior honorary civilian
16 consultant in forensic medicine to the armed forces?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. You are the visiting professor of forensic medicine at
19 a number of universities?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Both here and abroad?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. With regard to your experience, do I understand that you
24 are a member of the Home Office Policy Advisory Board in
25 Forensic Pathology?

63

1 A. I was.
2 Q. And you are an assessor in forensic pathology to the
3 General Medical Council?
4 A. I am.
5 Q. At the request of the Foreign Office, do I understand
6 that you carried out autopsies in the Balkans, the
7 Falkland Islands, Dubai and Gibraltar?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And that you have also been engaged and instructed by
10 the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal in
11 the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda?
12 A. I have.
13 Q. In addition, do I understand that you have supervised
14 pathology for a British forensic team, acting on behalf
15 of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during 1999
16 and 2000?
17 A. Yes, indeed.
18 Q. And that you have also been instructed to carry out
19 similar tasks in Chile and Sri Lanka?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. In addition, you have been the supervising pathologist
22 in a number of the major multiple death incidents in the
23 United Kingdom, including the Charing Cross road fire?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The marine barracks bombing in Deal?

64

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The Chinook helicopter crash at Campbelltown which
3 involved many of the security services?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And, abroad, a number of major air crashes?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Your publications -- and I will not go through them --
8 but your books, letters, articles extend to more than
9 70-odd publications; is that right?
10 A. Yes. By other medical standards, of course, it's fairly
11 humble, but by forensic standards it's reasonable.
12 Q. The medical statement being "I am, therefore I publish".
13 Just to try and put into context, your experience
14 here, you are, would it be fair to say, and without
15 false modesty, one of the leading pathologists, not only
16 in the United Kingdom, but in Western Europe and the
17 world?
18 A. Quite frankly that's for others to judge and not for me
19 to comment on.
20 Q. What I would like to do, Professor, is to first of all
21 understand your involvement in this matter and then to
22 understand what issues are actually material to your
23 consideration of the evidence in this case. We have
24 heard already that on 2nd September 1997 you received
25 an instruction to attend in Paris, that instruction

65

1 coming from those acting on behalf of, I understand,
2 Mohamed Al Fayed at that stage.
3 A. That's quite correct, yes.
4 Q. We have already heard -- and this is not
5 controversial -- that what had happened on
6 1st September 1997 was that the public prosecutor's
7 office in Paris had issued a statement saying that at
8 the time of the crash in the Alma Tunnel, the late
9 Henri Paul had a blood/alcohol reading of more than
10 three times the French legal limit.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That had been given extensive publicity on
13 1st September 1997 in British newspapers, both the
14 informed and the offensive.
15 A. Indeed.
16 Q. We have already heard from Professor Forrest that, in
17 fact, on the basis of the pathology and toxicology which
18 had been carried out by 1st September 1997, in his
19 professional judgment, such a statement should not have
20 been made on that date by the French public prosecutor.
21 A. I agree.
22 Q. You agree with that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So, in a sense, the declaration of Henri Paul's
25 drunkenness didn't get off to a terribly good start, did

66

1 it?
2 A. Not at all, correct, yes.
3 Q. When you arrived in Paris on 2nd September 1997, first
4 of all was a request made for a second post-mortem of
5 the late Henri Paul?
6 A. There was, yes.
7 Q. Was that refused?
8 A. Yes. We were told it was out of the question; refused.
9 Q. We understand that you then saw some initial reports
10 prepared by Professor Lecomte and Dr Pepin,
11 Professor Lecomte of course dealing strictly with the
12 pathology and Dr Pepin with the toxicology.
13 A. That's correct, yes.
14 Q. Did that prompt a request that further toxicological
15 experts should be instructed?
16 A. That's correct, yes, absolutely.
17 Q. That a further pathology opinion should be sought?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That further samples should be taken and tested by
20 an independent laboratory?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that an independent pathologist should be present at
23 an examination of any body?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Do I understand that all those requests were refused?

67

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You have then been taken to a meeting at the Chambers of
3 a Mr Hodge Malek --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- with a number of other experts, including two from
6 Lausanne University --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- and to one of a number of reports, your earliest
9 report being 15th December 1997.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, we have looked, as it were, through that window,
12 that small window in 1997, of what was going on,
13 Professor.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. As at 1997, and indeed as at 1998, had you actually been
16 given access to the raw pathology and toxicology from
17 Professor Lecomte and Dr Pepin, or, as my learned friend
18 Mr Hilliard indicated, had you been given just the
19 report?
20 A. Given the report and some of the toxicology, as we have
21 discussed, but we certainly didn't have access to all
22 the material.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That's what you would have wanted
24 if you had been able to carry out your own post-mortem?
25 A. Absolutely, yes, sir.

68

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But that, you were told, wasn't
2 permitted under French law?
3 A. That's correct, sir.
4 MR KEEN: So, at this stage, when you are doing this report,
5 you are, as it were, taking the reported results at face
6 value?
7 A. We are certainly taking it at face value and in good
8 faith, bearing in mind what we had available.
9 Q. I think, in fairness to my learned friend, at the very
10 end of his examination, what he put to you was that if
11 you make a series of assumptions about the provenance of
12 material, about the way in which it was handled, about
13 what I would infer is the chain of custody, and then you
14 simply look at the toxicology and the way in which it
15 was carried out, you can be satisfied about the way in
16 which the toxicology produces a result?
17 A. Yes, I mean, that's the main issue of the whole thing,
18 really.
19 Q. I think, in fact, it was Professor Forrest himself who
20 said "It is a truism that the interpretation of
21 toxicological analysis depends on the provenance and
22 quality of the samples submitted for analysis".
23 A. Of course.
24 Q. It's the provenance and quality of the samples that
25 I think are within the province of pathology, are they

69

1 not, Professor?
2 A. Yes, indeed, particularly in relation to the integrity
3 of the samples and chain of custody, absolutely.
4 Q. That's the principal matter that I would like to ask you
5 about, Professor. Before we quite get there, do
6 I understand that, following your first report, you did
7 apply for a meeting with Professor Lecomte and Dr Pepin,
8 particularly to discuss the findings with regard to
9 carboxyhaemoglobin which were recorded by them?
10 A. Yes, I believe we did, yes.
11 Q. Do I understand that no meeting was held at that stage?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. But then reports were produced from Professor Lecomte
14 and Dr Pepin purporting to explain how they got to the
15 carboxyhaemoglobin results?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. At that stage they were asserting that the results were
18 entirely accurate and advancing the proposition that
19 they could be explained by reference to inhalation by
20 the late Henri Paul from the contents of the airbag in
21 the Mercedes.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. I think at one stage Professor Forrest might have been
24 inclined to embrace that suggestion; is that right?
25 A. Yes, I think he did consider it, certainly, but I don't

70

1 think he took -- he considered it in seriousness might
2 further an initial consideration.
3 Q. I think to jump ahead a little, you, he and a number of
4 other experts met together, and it's recorded that you
5 were all agreed that the explanation offered by Dr Pepin
6 and Professor Lecomte for the carboxyhaemoglobin
7 concentrations in the blood samples is implausible and
8 can be discounted.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. In light of that being the prevailing view, was
11 an application made for what's termed a "confrontation"
12 with Professor Lecomte and Dr Pepin, that being
13 a discussion in front of Judge Stephan about their
14 findings and how they came to their conclusions?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was that again refused?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. At that time, is it fair to say -- and this takes us up
19 to February 1999 -- that you and a number of other
20 experts were expressing the view that the material
21 produced by Professor Lecomte and Dr Pepin was at best
22 unconvincing and at worst worrying?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. We will come on to consider what you meant by "worrying"
25 in a moment.

71

1 We mentioned a moment ago the chain of custody, and
2 we have already heard from Professor Forrest about the
3 chain of custody as a concept. Would it be fair to say
4 that this has got as much to do with common sense as it
5 has to do with science?
6 A. Certainly common sense and certainly got a lot to do
7 with science. Perhaps you could say to some extent that
8 it's perhaps a little bit on the pedantic side, but it
9 is designed so that there are no loopholes in the system
10 and that the integrity is maintained.
11 Q. To put it very briefly, Mr Hilliard said to you, "We
12 have photographs of the body and nobody suggests it's
13 not Henri Paul", and you would agree with that?
14 A. Yes. I mean, if somebody has seen the photographs
15 before and can speak to it, fair enough.
16 Q. I was just going to raise that. As I understand it, we
17 have not yet heard from anybody who has identified
18 Henri Paul in the photographs. That may appear
19 pedantic, but it's fairly basic, isn't it?
20 A. Absolutely, yes.
21 Q. What we have heard is people identifying a body by
22 reference to a number, "2146" or "2147".
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I think in the case of Henri Paul, we know from the
25 photographs that the label attached to the body seems to

72

1 have moved from the wrist to the ankle, so these labels
2 are moveable.
3 A. Yes, one would hope they wouldn't be, but --
4 Q. In this case they appear to be.
5 A. -- if they are loose and have come off, they may be put
6 on somewhere else.
7 Q. Okay. I do not want to go into the detail too much
8 about the body, but just looking to the chain of custody
9 as an issue, if you could have in front of you, I think,
10 the report that's prepared upon the meeting of experts
11 on 14th July 2007.
12 Sir, this is the report that was prepared upon the
13 meeting with Professor Forrest, Professor Johnston,
14 Professor Oliver and Professor Vanezis that
15 Professor Forrest went to in evidence.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
17 MR KEEN: I think if we go to [INQ0035090] --
18 A. Sir, which report are we looking at?
19 Q. If you look at the screen, you will see it coming up.
20 I will attempt to give you the INQ numbers so you don't
21 have to thumb through a bundle of documents at this
22 stage.
23 I think what you did at this point, as I understood
24 Professor Forrest's evidence, is that it's almost
25 a shorthand note of where all the experts were really

73

1 completely in agreement on certain matters; is that
2 right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. In these circumstances, each of the experts then signed
5 off every page of this particular document.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I just want to go to one shorthand note at the top of
8 the page under "Item 11":
9 "With respect to the 'list of allegations' submitted
10 to the court on behalf of the parents of Henri Paul, we
11 are agreed that the identification procedures of his
12 body and the collection, labelling and overall chain of
13 custody of the samples attributed to Henri Paul would
14 not meet the standards applicable for post-mortem
15 examinations in the United Kingdom."
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. I notice you use the word "standards" not "system". So
18 just different countries, different jurisdictions, may
19 have different systems. Can you explain, Professor,
20 what's the point of having standards?
21 A. Well, the whole point of having standards is that you
22 can have what is known as "good practice" at the very
23 least -- obviously best practice is the ultimate gold
24 standard, but at least good practice in how you carry
25 out your autopsy and how the chain of custody is

74

1 maintained, the integrity of the samples, so that
2 forensic investigation can proceed seamlessly.
3 Q. Although different jurisdictions may have different
4 systems, would you understand that they aspire to have
5 at least a reasonable standard for the chain of custody?
6 A. Yes, indeed, and particularly -- I mean, this whole
7 issue comes up from time to time at the -- sorry, what
8 could do we call it -- the Forensic Medical Legal
9 Council in Europe, which has been going for a number of
10 years -- the European Council of Legal Medicine,
11 sorry -- which has been going for many, many years, and
12 it covers how autopsies should be carried out in
13 different circumstances and guidelines as to what each
14 country should at least follow. Most of the countries
15 in Europe have representatives, including France, on
16 that council. There are well-known documents that are
17 published in relation to that.
18 Q. While people may have different systems within their
19 jurisdiction, would it be fair to say that
20 a jurisdiction such as France normally aspires to what
21 would be regarded as reasonable and acceptable standards
22 regarding the chain of custody?
23 A. Yes, of course.
24 Q. Is it important to ensure that those standards are
25 tempered and that they are adhered to?

75

1 A. Of course.
2 Q. Was that the issue that was really troubling the experts
3 at the time of this agreed joint statement?
4 A. It was, yes.
5 Q. That, of course, is in 2007. You are then operating
6 with the benefit of hindsight because, by then, of
7 course, you had access to all the materials or what we
8 believe may be all the materials concerning the
9 activities of Professor Lecomte and Dr Pepin, amongst
10 others --
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. -- which is not what you had available to you in 1997.
13 A. Far from it, that's right.
14 Q. Indeed, I think in reply to my learned friend,
15 Mr Hilliard, when you were talking about the original
16 report you gave and the reference to the various
17 results, you said that the expressions of opinion there
18 were, as I noted you, "... on the basis of the material
19 provided".
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. You meant the material provided at that time?
22 A. That's exactly what I meant, yes.
23 Q. Not the material provided today?
24 A. Absolutely not, no.
25 Q. Now in addition to the joint report that we are looking

76

1 at, there was also a joint report completed between
2 yourself and Dr Richard Shepherd, who has already given
3 evidence.
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. I think I should have said Professor Shepherd, as he now
6 is.
7 A. Yes, that is right.
8 Q. Would you acknowledge that Professor Shepherd is also
9 an expert in the area of pathology?
10 A. A very well-known expert