Hearing transcripts

30 January 2008 - Afternoon session

1 Wednesday, 30th January 2008
11 (2.00 pm)
12 (Jury present)
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am just a little anxious about
14 the time aspect of today, bearing in mind we have two
15 more witnesses. We have an early start and a late
16 finish tomorrow and we have been a bit late the last two
17 nights, so there is really no question of going late
18 this evening.
19 I am conscious that we have three experts in court
20 today. Can you help me about how much longer you will
21 be, Mr Keen?
22 MR KEEN: Sir, with this witness I will not be a great deal
23 longer. I understand Mr Macleod thinks he might be
24 an hour or so. With regard to Professor Oliver, who is
25 due to come next, I do not think he will be terribly

114

1 long. With regard to Professor Johnston,
2 Professor Johnston did actually produce some notes which
3 he intended to use when giving evidence and I passed
4 those to my learned friend yesterday when I received
5 them, and I think that may help to focus the matters
6 that Professor Johnston is going to address.
7 So if Mr Macleod is going to take us up to the break
8 at about 3.15 with this witness, I think it's still
9 possible that we can deal with the other witnesses
10 within an hour, although that might be a little tight.
11 I am sure inquiries can be made to see whether
12 Professor Johnston would be available tomorrow morning,
13 if required, and perhaps that can be done. He is
14 indicating that he would be available tomorrow morning
15 if that was necessary.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Anyway, everybody knows the
17 problem so we will press on. Thank you.
18 MR MACLEOD: Perhaps I should say that the indication I gave
19 was an hour to an hour and a half because there are two
20 distinct areas that I need to take this witness through,
21 but I will do my best, obviously, to compress that.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
23 MR KEEN: Professor, if I can try and take up a compressed
24 10 minutes. I wonder if we could just, before I come on
25 to your additional observations, make sure that we are

115

1 clear about certain matters.
2 We know already that the blood samples taken on
3 31st August 199 have, if you like, been impugned as
4 a source of any quantitative analysis of blood/alcohol.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. We know that it was because there were early doubts
7 about those samples that in fact Dr Campana was
8 appointed by Judge Stephan to take the samples on
9 4th September from the femoral vein or artery.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Indeed, I think Dr Pepin himself referred to this
12 process as unprecedented in his experience.
13 A. Yes, I believe he did.
14 Q. Judge Stephan was present when the left femoral blood
15 sample was handed to Dr Pepin.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I do not want to go back through the chain of custody
18 from Dr Pepin to Dr Dumestre Toulet. We have already
19 noted that the joint report of those doctors referred to
20 the seal being intact on that sample.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Just to dispel any doubts on this, can I take you to
23 Dr Pepin's observations about that particular part of
24 the process? This is at [INQ0007346]. If we go to
25 paragraph 23, this is the interview with the

116

1 Metropolitan Police at which I believe Professor Forrest
2 was present. Dr Pepin tells us:
3 "The sample sent to Dr Dumestre Toulet was
4 an unused, unopened, sealed vial."
5 Is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could we then look, please, at Dr Pepin's own report on
8 his blood/alcohol analysis which we find at
9 [INQ0004623].
10 I think we can see that this is the toxicological
11 report that Dr Pepin made to the examining magistrate,
12 Mr Stephan, and if we go to [INQ0004625], just for
13 a moment, do we see the heading "Mission"?
14 A. Yes, indeed.
15 Q. I think he is told that his mission is:
16 "To analyse the samples of blood and tissues which
17 will be taken today at 5 pm in my presence [this is
18 Judge Stephan speaking] and yours from the body of
19 Henri Paul at the Institute of Forensic Medicine for the
20 purpose of carrying out a full toxicological analysis
21 (alcohol and presence of any toxins)."
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do we see that under that, dated "Paris, 9th September
24 1997", Dr Pepin claims, "I have fulfilled my
25 mission ..."? Is that right?

117

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If we go over the page to [INQ0004627], do we see that
3 what he purports to produce in this report is the
4 still-sealed sample of blood which was handed to him by
5 Dr Campana on 4th September, and do we see, in the
6 background, a reference to it being "femoral gauche", on
7 the label, behind the bottle?
8 A. Yes, indeed.
9 Q. So that is the left femoral that he has actually
10 photographed there still in its sealed state?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. If we stay with this report for one moment longer, if
13 you turn to page 24 of the report, which I think you
14 will find is at [INQ0004646], at the top of the page, in
15 his report to Judge Stephan, Dr Pepin says:
16 "The blood not used for the analyses will be
17 preserved at Dr Pepin's analytical laboratory for one
18 year dating from the issue of this report."
19 Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So according to this report, Dr Pepin had the left
22 femoral blood sample, analysed it for blood/alcohol --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- whereas in the other report he signed, it was sent
25 off to Bordeaux --

118

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- and then says that there is blood left over or not
3 used for the analysis.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, if that was the case, presumably that blood could
6 have been tested for DNA?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Genetic fingerprinting?
9 A. Yes, indeed.
10 Q. So if somebody wanted to check that this was
11 Henri Paul's blood that Dr Pepin had tested on the basis
12 of this report, that would have been straightforward?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can we see what happens when the Metropolitan Police ask
15 Dr Pepin about this blood? You can find this at
16 [INQ0032268]. This was a question and answer session
17 in March 2006, when it appears that someone is alert to
18 this same problem. If you go to the top of the page,
19 perhaps we can focus on question 130, talking about the
20 gendarmes coming to his laboratory to get samples that
21 are left over. It asks:
22 "In relation to the femoral blood, was any taken
23 away by the gendarmes during their first or second
24 visit?
25 "Answer: No, the femoral blood, which was sealed

119

1 exhibit number 2 of 1997 and sampled by Dr Campana, was
2 completely used up during the tests completed in 1997."
3 If it was completed used up, it would not be
4 available for DNA testing, would it?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. But in his report to Judge Stephan, he told him it was
7 not used up; is that right?
8 A. Yes, I believe so.
9 Q. Finally can just turn to some of the observations that
10 you made in your joint report at [INQ0051956]? I want
11 to go through these fairly briefly. You may, of course,
12 indicate that some of these conclusions and observations
13 in what is a joint report are more the province of
14 a clinical pharmacologist or toxicologist, so I only
15 want to touch upon those matters that fall within your
16 area of immediate expertise, Professor.
17 Do I understand that, on the basis of the
18 information you had in 2007, this was an attempt to, as
19 it were, draw together some observations on the
20 pathology that you had finally been able to examine
21 fully in respect of the work done by Professor Lecomte
22 and Dr Campana and indeed Dr Pepin in 1997?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You begin by saying:
25 "1. That, given this case was going to be the focus

120

1 of so much international attention, it is unbelievable
2 that proper and detailed chain of custody documentation
3 for the samples taken at post-mortem through to the
4 presentation of evidence in court does not exist."
5 Do you stand by that, Professor?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. You say:
8 "2. That the number of samples taken by
9 Professor Lecomte at post-mortem differ from the number
10 of samples received by the toxicologist."
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Again, do you stand by that?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. "3. That the labelling of the blood samples was
15 incorrect and it is astonishing that the true anatomical
16 source of these blood samples was not revealed to
17 Professor Pepin until 2006 when interviewed by the Paget
18 team."
19 I think that's because until 2006, Dr Pepin thought
20 that the blood samples taken on 31st August were what
21 Professor Lecomte had described them to be, namely
22 samples of cardiac blood --
23 A. That's right, yes.
24 Q. -- when in fact they never were.
25 A. That's correct.

121

1 Q. But we now find that there is a further complication
2 identified by Professor Shepherd, namely that at least
3 one and possibly two vials of blood had been taken
4 before the haemothorax of the body was even opened up.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. "4. That no peripheral blood specimens were taken at
7 the initial post-mortem."
8 I take it that's a reference again to
9 31st August 1997?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. "5. That quantitative analysis for alcohol and drugs
12 was undertaken on the cardiac blood."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I think that has been dealt with in the joint report,
15 where you and Professor Forrest and the others agreed
16 that you cannot rely upon what was, in fact, the
17 haemothorax blood for quantitative blood/alcohol
18 analysis.
19 A. Correct, and that's why "cardiac" is in inverted commas.
20 Q. Then 6:
21 "That carboxyhaemoglobin was measured in the cardiac
22 blood and not at that time disclosed in analytical
23 results until the discrepancy was pointed out by experts
24 appointed by Mr Al Fayed at a meeting with M Brizay in
25 London in 1997."

122

1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Is it the case that the results with regard to
3 carboxyhaemoglobin were not disclosed in any analytical
4 results until that time?
5 A. Yes, that's the case, yes.
6 Q. "7. That given that there was no explanation for the
7 carboxyhaemoglobin level measured in that blood sample,
8 a check was not made at that time to verify that the
9 specimen was indeed taken from Henri Paul."
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is that what you had requested should be done at the
12 beginning of September 1997 when you were in Paris?
13 A. Indeed, yes.
14 Q. That was refused?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. "8. That the alcohol concentrations measured in the
17 peripheral blood specimens taken four days later were
18 recalculated to match the concentrations in the initial
19 cardiac specimen."
20 In fact, if we follow through the chain of custody
21 not from Dr Campana to Dr Pepin, but from Dr Pepin to
22 Dr Dumestre Toulet, is there a question as to which
23 blood sample was actually analysed, if any, by Dr Pepin,
24 following the Dr Campana post-mortem examination on
25 4th September 1997?

123

1 A. Yes, I think there is now, yes.
2 Q. "9. That the results of the analysis of one cardiac
3 specimen was transposed and reported in a second cardiac
4 specimen."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is this what was discovered upon an analysis of
7 Dr Pepin's work, that in at least one instance he had
8 taken the result of one analysis and inserted it in
9 a later report, supposedly a supporting report, as
10 an independent result, when in fact he was just lifting
11 it from another report?
12 A. Yes. My toxicology colleagues will be able to expand on
13 that, yes.
14 Q. We then go on to a number of issues we have touched upon
15 with regard to the carboxyhaemoglobin and with regard to
16 specimens received and their analysis. I do not need to
17 take you through those as they are largely matters of
18 toxicology and clinical pharmacology. But a point that
19 we have just touched upon at paragraph 13 is that there
20 is no definitive record of the fate of all the
21 specimens.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Do we notice that, in fact, while Dr Pepin reported
24 having retained some blood from his analysis, after
25 4th September 1997, when asked to produce it, he claimed

124

1 that in fact all the blood had been used up in his
2 toxicological analyses?
3 A. That's right, yes.
4 Q. You then go on to talk about the surrounding
5 circumstances which I think are more a matter for
6 Professor Oliver than yourself; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At paragraph 17:
9 "That because of the lack of documentation, there
10 remains uncertainty in the identification of the sample
11 of blood used to test for DNA. It is disgraceful that
12 in any case and especially in a case of this nature that
13 the documentation has proved to be insufficiently
14 accurate to require this method of validation."
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Do you stand by that?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. I think we heard, in fact, from Professor Shepherd that
19 one of the features of this case is that while we have
20 a series of DNA tests, invariably they are done on
21 specimens that were never the subject of toxicological
22 analysis for blood/alcohol quantification; is that
23 right?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. So we have two entirely parallel streams of test?

125

1 A. It would appear that way, yes.
2 Q. What's the use of those?
3 A. Well, exactly. I mean, you have answered your own
4 question.
5 MR KEEN: Perhaps that saves time, Professor. Thank you.
6 I have no further questions.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford?
8 MR CROXFORD: No questions, thank you, sir.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you. Mr Macleod?
10 Questions from MR MACLEOD
11 MR MACLEOD: Professor, I ask questions on behalf of the
12 Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. My name is
13 Duncan Macleod.
14 Professor, the question which the jury will have to
15 grapple with in this inquest and the topic to which your
16 evidence is directed is whether it is likely or the jury
17 can be satisfied that Henri Paul's ability to drive on
18 the night in question was impaired by the consumption of
19 alcohol.
20 A. I understand.
21 Q. In answering that question, do you agree with
22 Professor Forrest that the forensic medical evidence is
23 but one evidential aspect of the jigsaw and it needs to
24 be interpreted in its full factual context?
25 A. Yes, I mean, that's right, and depending on different

126

1 aspects of the evidence as it comes out, obviously
2 different weight is given to different parts of the
3 evidence. Some evidence is more important than others
4 in terms of coming to a conclusion.
5 Q. I think that there was a large measure of agreement, for
6 example, between Professor Forrest, yourself and other
7 experts concerning certain inconsistencies or
8 inadequacies in the procedures which has been labelled
9 the "pre-analytical issues".
10 A. That's correct, yes.
11 Q. The real question for the jury is this, isn't it: they
12 have to weigh the interpretation and the weight that is
13 properly to be given, for example, to inadequacies and
14 inconsistencies that have been identified --
15 A. Exactly.
16 Q. -- but also they need to look around those issues to see
17 whether there are other consistent pieces of evidence
18 which fit together, correlate and support other pieces
19 of evidence that may enable them to be satisfied, for
20 example, that notwithstanding deficiencies or
21 inadequacies in labelling, that the sample was indeed
22 that of Henri Paul?
23 A. Well, that's right. I mean, they have to look at all
24 the evidence and obviously they will place more emphasis
25 on some evidence than others in coming to their

127

1 conclusion.
2 Q. So, for example, if there were deficiencies in
3 pre-analytical issues such as a label bearing "heart
4 blood" overwritten with "femoral gauche" or "XM
5 masculin", crossed out, "Henri Paul", those would not be
6 ideal pre-analytical procedures to adopt, would they?
7 A. They are not only not ideal. They are very far from
8 ideal actually because labelling is one of the most
9 important parts of any forensic examination, and the
10 continuity of the labelling, who does it, when it is
11 labelled and so on, it's crucial to the issue.
12 Q. But if, for example, a subsequent DNA analysis
13 established an identical matching profile with
14 a comparator, that would be conclusive evidence?
15 A. I am not a DNA expert, but if the DNA experts say so,
16 then I would agree with it.
17 Q. Yes, and you are a professor of forensic medicine --
18 A. I am.
19 Q. -- familiar with these type of issues?
20 A. I am familiar more with forensic pathology, but I know
21 about the scope of the field.
22 Q. Now, before I go to aspects of the forensic evidence
23 with you, Professor, to see how well or otherwise the
24 evidence fits together in identifying the samples to
25 Henri Paul, I would like to ask you first about events

128

1 surrounding your initial instruction and your appearance
2 at a Harrods press conference --
3 A. Yes, sure.
4 Q. -- on 5th September. First of all, would it be fair to
5 say that the purpose of the press conference in Harrods
6 on 5th September was to negative reports that Henri Paul
7 had been drinking before he drove that night?
8 A. Well, I mean, I will be honest with you, I don't know
9 exactly what the purpose of the press conference --
10 obviously it was important to have a press conference
11 based on what has been happening, but the purpose of it
12 and what lay behind it -- I was just there to give my
13 point of view.
14 Q. Well, your point of view was given in conjunction with
15 others as part of an unified conference, wasn't it?
16 A. Correct, yes.
17 Q. What had happened was that, quite early in the
18 proceedings, whether it was a press release or a release
19 of information from the French authorities, information
20 had been released or leaked to the effect that
21 Henri Paul's blood/alcohol level was in excess of twice
22 the UK driving limit.
23 A. That's right, yes.
24 Q. I think you were asked to assist in an investigation as
25 to whether or not that was a reliable blood/alcohol

129

1 reading on 2nd September.
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. I think you arrived the very same day in Paris on
4 2nd September.
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. So it was obvious that you dropped whatever you were
7 doing and went there immediately.
8 A. I didn't actually drop whatever I was doing. I had
9 a fatal accident inquiry in Kilmarnock at the time, gave
10 my evidence there and then went from there.
11 Q. You went at short notice?
12 A. "At short notice" I think would be a better way of
13 putting it.
14 Q. How did you perceive your role in that press conference
15 at that stage?
16 A. As an expert who had gone over to Paris and had had some
17 misgivings about the way the procedures were handled,
18 and in terms also of my own ability to be able to carry
19 out further investigation, I thought it was important to
20 make this clear.
21 Q. The purpose really of the press conference on
22 5th September was to inform the world's media of the
23 investigations that Harrods, or I should say
24 Mr Al Fayed, had undertaken that tended to negative that
25 report of an excess alcohol reading in Henri Paul's

130

1 blood.
2 A. I mean, that's certainly one way of looking at it.
3 Certainly, from my point of view, I felt it was
4 unreliable and I thought it was fair to say so, bearing
5 in mind that it had already been in the press earlier as
6 put out at a very early stage without it being
7 confirmed.
8 Q. Because you said at that press conference that, as you
9 just indicated, you didn't think that that reading was
10 reliable. At that stage you knew very little indeed
11 about the process of blood/alcohol testing; is that
12 right?
13 A. It's not a question of knowing about the process of
14 alcohol testing that was the issue here. The issue was
15 that I knew that some blood had been taken from part of
16 the body which was liable to contamination and was
17 suboptimal, and in those circumstances, to rely on the
18 result from that area, in my view, was premature and
19 unreliable.
20 Q. I am looking at page 11 of the press conference, and
21 when you were asked from the audience, "Where was that
22 sample from? What part of the body was it taken from?",
23 your answer was, "We have no idea where that sample was
24 taken from in the body. All we know is that it was
25 a blood sample".

131

1 A. Sorry, that's page 11?
2 Q. Page 11, yes.
3 A. Yes, I may well have used those terms, but in my mind
4 I was under the impression that it had come from the
5 heart.
6 Q. Because I think the position is -- and it's made clear
7 in your statement of 27th May 2005 -- that you in fact
8 had very little information to go on at that stage and
9 you made it clear in the press conference that you were
10 acting on very little information.
11 A. Yes, indeed.
12 Q. It was not apparent from the texts of the reports that
13 you had seen what the sampling conditions were; what the
14 preservation technique was; what the storage system was;
15 there was no urine analysis; no vitreous humour; you
16 didn't know where the blood was collected from; matters
17 of that sort?
18 A. Yes, that's correct, yes.
19 Q. Now, the press conference, I think, was on
20 5th September, and you had been in Paris on the 2nd and
21 the 3rd.
22 A. Yes, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, came back on the 5th,
23 yes.
24 Q. So you had been in Paris three days as part of the
25 investigations conducted by Mr Al Fayed into the

132

1 question of whether Henri Paul was likely to have been
2 drinking and driving.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Now I think, during that time, you were briefed, both by
5 lawyers --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- and by those responsible for the management of
8 the Ritz as to what was going on.
9 A. Yes, indeed, yes.
10 Q. I want to ask you exactly what you were informed at that
11 time because we now know, don't we, that the impression
12 given at that press conference was misleading?
13 A. I am not sure what you mean by "misleading".
14 Q. Perhaps if I can return to that and I will go through
15 the press conference in detail. Can I indicate that
16 I am not suggesting any criticism of yourself,
17 Professor Vanezis.
18 First of all, the press conference began with
19 Mr Cole, the spokesman for Mr Al Fayed, giving
20 a detailed summary of the key events and a timeline of
21 events showing the movements of Henri Paul and the
22 chronology of his movements through the evening with
23 detailed timings.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The second part of the conference was

133

1 Paul Handley-Greaves going through, in great detail, the
2 CCTV footage, showing clips of Henri Paul's movements
3 throughout the course of the evening.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The press conference concluded by you adding some expert
6 weight to those proceedings?
7 A. My expert opinion, put it that way.
8 Q. Now, dealing first with this: there was no mention
9 whatsoever at the press conference that Henri Paul had
10 in fact been drinking in the Bar Vendome
11 at the Ritz Hotel between an hour and two hours before
12 the journey, was there?
13 A. That's right. I believe that's correct.
14 Q. Now, I want to ask you to think very carefully,
15 Professor, whether you were shown the CCTV footage in
16 the three days that you were being briefed about events
17 before it was shown in London at the press conference.
18 A. I may have been. I can't be 100 per cent certain about
19 it, I am afraid.
20 Q. I would like to put up, please, page 7 of the press
21 conference transcript. If we look at the top of the
22 page, this is Paul Handley-Greaves speaking about the
23 clips of Henri Paul. The first paragraph says this:
24 "The next sequence of shots you'll see is
25 Mr Henri Paul arriving in his own vehicle outside the

134

1 hotel some 10 minutes later, park his vehicle up and
2 we've tried to include as many sequences as possible to
3 demonstrate Mr Henri Paul's demeanour on the night in
4 question."
5 Dropping two paragraphs:
6 "Mr Henri Paul shakes hands with a client he
7 recognises and the concierge and night duty manager [who
8 we now know to be a M Rocher], all three who have
9 provided very detailed statements to the French
10 authorities ..."
11 Were you shown any statements at that stage?
12 A. I am not 100 per cent certain, but my statement -- the
13 statements that I was shown related to the autopsy and
14 to Dr Pepin -- that's all I can remember -- and also
15 trying to negotiate to do the autopsy. That's my memory
16 at that time.
17 Q. Presumably, Professor, if you were going on a press
18 conference broadcast to the world, being critical of the
19 blood/alcohol reading and suggesting it was unreliable,
20 you would have wanted yourself to be satisfied, as far
21 as you possibly could, that, for example, Henri Paul had
22 not been drinking that evening at the Ritz Hotel?
23 A. I was basing my -- I mean, those are two different
24 issues because it's the blood sample that I had an issue
25 with, the fact that it was taken from what I believe to

135

1 be not an optimal part of the body, such as the
2 peripheral veins, and also subject to contamination from
3 trauma. I was basically basing my unreliability on the
4 fact that the blood samples were taken from an area
5 which could have been open to wide discrepancies.
6 Q. So we are clear here, Professor Vanezis -- and again
7 I am not criticising you -- this was a tripartite
8 conference about the movements of Henri Paul, his
9 demeanour as it appeared on the CCTV footage and then
10 your expert opinion. You had been briefed for three
11 days at the Ritz Hotel --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- concerning matters appertaining to that critical
14 question.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can I ask you again? Were you shown any witness
17 statements from members of the staff about Henri Paul's
18 condition or movements that night?
19 A. To give you the very honest answer as much as I possibly
20 can, I cannot remember reading any statement. It's
21 quite possible I might have been shown statements
22 briefly. I really don't know. I can't remember.
23 Q. Were you briefed to the effect that investigations had
24 taken place and there was no evidence that Henri Paul
25 had been drinking?

136

1 A. I was briefed in terms of casual conversation between us
2 that there was an issue about the possibility of whether
3 he had been drinking or not and the fact that there was
4 the concerns that the blood/alcohol result had been
5 released very quickly, without it having been checked.
6 From that point of view, I was quite -- from my point of
7 view, I felt uneasy about a blood result being released
8 very, very quickly and taken from a part of the body
9 which was not optimal, showing such a high level, and it
10 had to be tested independently. That was my take on it.
11 Q. That is perfectly understandable, and Professor Forrest
12 and I think everyone agrees that it was not appropriate
13 for a premature announcement to be made.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But you were, in effect, redressing the balance with
16 a contradictory view?
17 A. No, I -- well, no. What I was saying was that,
18 number 1, it shouldn't have been produced prematurely
19 and, secondly, that it had not been taken from
20 an optimal part of the body, which obviously means that
21 that sample may well be unreliable because of
22 contamination.
23 Q. We will go further on what was said and how this
24 conference developed.
25 Then it says:

137

1 "Very detailed statements to the French authorities
2 about his demeanour that night, M Henri Paul. This
3 gentleman is the night security manager."
4 Then dropping down two paragraphs:
5 "Again same camera, you will see Mr Henri Paul
6 speaking to the same two gentlemen for some considerable
7 length of time. He asks where the two security
8 gentlemen are [that's the bodyguards to Princess Diana
9 and Dodi Al Fayed] and he is taken to them. They are
10 actually sitting down, having a bite to eat."
11 That was in the Bar Vendome at the Ritz Hotel.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. So Henri Paul is seen sitting with the two bodyguards,
14 not on CCTV, but by the staff, and entering the
15 Bar Vendome.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. "Please note the times and the sequence of clips. We
18 have, as much as possible, identified all of
19 Henri Paul's movements for the two hours or so he was
20 actually at the hotel and we are satisfied we can
21 account for all of them, both with video evidence and
22 people giving great detailed statements of his movements
23 and actions that night."
24 Then the next paragraph:
25 "This is Henri Paul here. The night security

138

1 manager and the concierge ... the night manager is this
2 gentleman here [that's Mr Rocher]. You will see a lot
3 of sequences of these individuals."
4 Over the page to page 8, centre of the page:
5 "Paul Handley-Greaves: ... with Mr Macnamara [part
6 has not come out on the transcript] the director of
7 security, we are satisfied and happy that their accounts
8 of Henri Paul's demeanour are accurate and those
9 accounts are that he was sober, he didn't smell of
10 alcohol, his gait was steady, they had no suggestion or
11 indications that anything, he was anything other than
12 completely sober."
13 Now, were you briefed about the investigations that
14 were made by the director of security for Mr Al Fayed
15 and by his lawyers about the questioning of staff at the
16 hotel in order to support the theory that M Henri Paul
17 was completely sober?
18 A. I was aware that obviously staff had been questioned and
19 I was aware of the fact that I was told that his
20 demeanour was -- did not -- was not that of a person
21 that would have been obviously drunk and appeared
22 without drink, or "sober" as you call it. Yes, I mean,
23 I was aware of that, yes.
24 Q. Harrods made three press releases during the time
25 leading up to the press conference on 5th September.

139

1 The first was on 1st September and it began in these
2 terms:
3 "We condemn in the strongest terms drink driving in
4 any circumstances. In this case the Hotel Ritz is still
5 awaiting information from the authorities in Paris."
6 On 3rd September a press release -- and this was
7 while you were in Paris -- was issued, which began:
8 "The latest anonymous allegation that M Henri Paul
9 was not licensed or permitted to drive the car in which
10 Dodi Al Fayed and Diana, Princess of Wales, were fatally
11 injured on Sunday morning is totally unfounded."
12 The jury have heard evidence about Henri Paul having
13 a driving licence but no Grande Remise licence to
14 chauffeur people around who were guests of the hotel.
15 I will not trouble you with that. What I would ask
16 is for the press release of 2nd September -- this is the
17 day you arrived in Paris -- to be put up on the screen,
18 please.
19 I want to ask you to what extent you were being made
20 aware of these inquiries before you appeared at the
21 press conference, Professor.
22 "Mr Mohamed Al Fayed was mortified to learn through
23 press allegations that the chauffeur driving the car
24 carrying Diana, Princess of Wales, and his son, Dodi,
25 was intoxicated ..."

140

1 Dropping down to the next paragraph:
2 "He immediately despatched his director of security,
3 a former detective chief superintendent at
4 Scotland Yard, and lawyers to Paris to make further
5 inquiries.
6 "They learned that the driver was on duty at the
7 hotel until approximately 7.30 ..."
8 Well we know it was about 7 o'clock that he left the
9 Ritz.
10 A. Sure.
11 Q. "... on Saturday 30th August. He went off duty and left
12 the hotel at that time, after it appeared that
13 Princess Diana and Mr Fayed had left the premises for
14 the evening. When the couple unexpectedly decided to
15 return to the hotel to dine there, M Henri Paul, as
16 deputy director of security for the hotel, was notified
17 and he returned to the hotel at approximately 10.10 pm.
18 He was observed driving his own car to the hotel,
19 parking it in the normal way and walking normally into
20 the hotel."
21 Then this is the part I want to ask you about.
22 "In the hotel he spoke to a number of members of
23 staff, none of whom detected any smell of drink or any
24 other signs to suggest he had been drinking."
25 Was that the information that was being provided to

141

1 you at the time?
2 A. I had some information and it was along the lines
3 basically that they didn't feel that Mr Henri Paul was
4 in fact intoxicated. That was the general information
5 that I had got.
6 Q. Who was giving you this information?
7 A. Well, mainly from the head of security, Mr Macnamara was
8 briefing me when I was in the Ritz and also on the way
9 there. I think he was the main person. I think I also
10 may well have spoken with Franck Klein, the manager of
11 the Ritz, as well, who also, I think, mentioned along
12 those lines. So there was a general discussion.
13 Q. So we are clear, it was your understanding that the
14 director of security, a former detective chief
15 superintendent at Scotland Yard, and lawyers had made
16 inquiries with numbers of members of staff who had had
17 dealings with Henri Paul that night and no-one was able
18 to give any evidence that he had consumed any alcohol at
19 all?
20 A. Well, all the impression that I got, if I remember
21 correctly, was that he was not intoxicated at the --
22 time -- that's the impression I got -- and indeed they
23 may well have said, possibly, that he had not been
24 drinking any alcohol, but I am not certain of that.
25 I am not certain of that.

142

1 Q. Would you have expected, if a press release was issued
2 at the time of your presence during these
3 investigations, indicating that numbers of members of
4 staff had been spoken to and none detected any smell or
5 any other sign to suggest that he had been drinking,
6 that the director of security, in his position as
7 a former detective at Scotland Yard, and the lawyers
8 would have asked at the very least those individuals who
9 appeared speaking with Henri Paul on the CCTV footage
10 that had obviously been studied in great detail?
11 A. Sorry, can you just repeat your question? Sorry.
12 Q. When you were listening --
13 MR KEEN: I wonder if, before it's repeated, my learned
14 friend could indicate why this is relevant from
15 a professor of pathology.
16 MR MACLEOD: I am not asking him as a professor of
17 pathology. I am asking him as a witness of fact.
18 I think my learned friend knows full well where this
19 line of questioning is directed.
20 MR KEEN: No, I don't, sir, otherwise I would not have
21 asked. If he is examining the witness as a witness of
22 fact, so be it.
23 MR MACLEOD: You now know, don't you, Professor, that in
24 fact Henri Paul had been drinking in the Bar Vendome
25 between 10.07 and 10.25 and 10.44 and 11.10 in the

143

1 evening, an hour or two before he set off in the car?
2 A. Yes, I do know, yes.
3 Q. You have read the various papers relating to
4 Henri Paul's condition and potential intoxication,
5 haven't you?
6 A. I have.
7 Q. You are now aware, aren't you, that two barmen who were
8 on duty that night in the Bar Vendome, Sebastien Trote
9 and Philippe Doucin, served Henri Paul two Ricards?
10 A. I believe that was the case, yes.
11 Q. You are aware that the head barman on duty that night,
12 Alain Willaumez, was also able to give evidence that he
13 had seen Henri Paul drinking alcohol and had noticed
14 signs of intoxication?
15 A. If that's what he said, fine. I am not aware of every
16 single document, but certainly I know that he had two
17 Ricards in the bar. But the actual individual --
18 Q. As Mr Keen would like to know where this line of
19 questioning is going, I will just tell you where it is
20 going, Professor. Alain Willaumez said that he was told
21 by Mr Klein to stick to the account that Henri Paul had
22 been drinking fruit juice.
23 Mr Keen shakes his head.
24 MR KEEN: I don't think that's an appropriate observation
25 for Mr Macleod to make in front of the jury, but can

144

1 I point out that he just didn't ask a question. That is
2 why I was shaking my head. If he would like to ask a
3 question, I will not shake my head.
4 MR MACLEOD: You have read these statements, haven't you?
5 A. I may not have read all the statements because, as you
6 can appreciate, there are a large number of different
7 documents and I concentrated on the material that was
8 relevant to my expertise.
9 Q. You are likely, in your role, in determining whether or
10 not, looking at the totality of the evidence, this jury
11 can be satisfied whether or not Henri Paul -- his
12 ability to drive was affected by alcohol that night.
13 Your job is not simply to look at whether the labels
14 were handwritten or typed, matters of that sort. It's
15 to look at all the evidence in a proper context, isn't
16 it?
17 A. It's to look at the evidence that is presented to me in
18 the correct context. I am not aware of all the
19 statements. There are some, obviously, I have not seen.
20 It's inevitable that I have not seen some of the
21 statements because some of them --
22 Q. Were you not provided by those who instruct you with
23 witness statements from staff at the Ritz Hotel
24 indicating the amount of alcohol Henri Paul may have
25 been drinking that night?

145

1 A. I can't remember whether I have actually had the
2 statements and read them. I was informed that he had
3 had two Ricards.
4 Q. Do you now know that Mr Willaumez also has given
5 evidence or, in his statement, indicated that Mr Tendil,
6 the security staff officer on duty, who is seen speaking
7 to Mr Henri Paul -- on his account, M Tendil knew he had
8 been drinking and tried to persuade him not to drive.
9 MR KEEN: With the greatest respect, Mr Tendil has given
10 evidence to this inquest before this jury and that issue
11 was never ever raised with him. It's outrageous that
12 Mr Macleod should raise it in this way --
13 MR MACLEOD: This is Mr Willaumez's evidence.
14 MR KEEN: Let me finish. Let me finish. Thank you.
15 If Mr Macleod, on his responsibility as counsel
16 representing the Metropolitan Police, wanted to put to
17 this jury that Mr Tendil had made such an allegation, he
18 had Mr Tendil in the witness box and he should have put
19 it to him. That is how these proceedings are conducted,
20 be it an inquest or otherwise, and he did not do so. So
21 for him to now make that allegation is not appropriate
22 in my submission.
23 MR MACLEOD: It's not an allegation that this is what
24 Mr Tendil said at all. My learned friend
25 misunderstands. This is what Mr Willaumez said, and it

146

1 was raised in his evidence and brought out.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We are getting rather a long way
3 away from the real matters for this witness, aren't we,
4 because this is a witness who gives the jury and the
5 court the benefit of his expertise.
6 Now, I think that your point is: well, the results
7 of these tests aren't totally valueless because you have
8 to look at them in the context of the whole of the rest
9 of the evidence, and if the rest of the evidence leads
10 you to the conclusion that in fact the samples were the
11 samples of Henri Paul, then, when you cross-match
12 matters relating to the drugs that he was taking and so
13 forth, the evidence cannot be thrown out of the window
14 completely.
15 MR MACLEOD: Sir, with respect, that is a separate point
16 which I would seek to establish with this witness. At
17 the moment I am dealing with him not in his capacity as
18 an expert witness, but in his capacity as a factual
19 witness who is able to give evidence about what he was
20 told in his briefing as to whether or not Henri Paul had
21 been drinking. It goes to issues such as the
22 credibility of Mr Klein and whether, in fact, members of
23 staff were being told essentially to toe the line that
24 only pineapple juice or fruit juice had been consumed by
25 Henri Paul on that evening, and whether, at the time

147

1 when Professor Vanezis was being instructed, this was
2 the type of information that he was being given that
3 enabled him to not be embarrassed --
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You can ask him about the
5 information that he was given and I think you have done
6 that at some length and I think he has given you the
7 answers to that. But beyond that I think it is
8 ultimately going to be a matter for the jury to draw
9 their own conclusions.
10 MR MACLEOD: It may be that I can deal with it with
11 Mr Macnamara.
12 Now, dealing with the starting point for the
13 evidence, I think it's right that Ricard, as we now
14 know, had been consumed by Henri Paul at the Ritz Hotel,
15 and I think its right, is it not, that Ricard is
16 a spirit, 45 per cent proof?
17 A. Yes, indeed.
18 Q. That is stronger than the average whiskey at 40 per cent
19 proof?
20 A. Yes.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Can we shorten this because
22 I think Professor Forrest said that he would not
23 willingly be a passenger in a vehicle driven by somebody
24 who had two Ricards. Do you agree with that or do you
25 disagree?

148

1 A. Well, if someone had had a couple of drinks, say, a few
2 hours beforehand and there was enough time in between
3 for it to go through his body, I wouldn't have a problem
4 with that.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No, I think it was put in
6 relation to the time that these Ricards were taken, if
7 I remember rightly.
8 MR MACLEOD: I will deal with this point shortly. They were
9 served in 5 cl measures, which is a double pub measure.
10 You are nodding.
11 A. Yes, I am just ...
12 Q. So a pub measure would be 2.5 cls; so this was the
13 equivalent of more than four single measures of whiskey?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you agree that when the jury are tackling the
16 question of whether or not M Henri Paul's ability to
17 drive was likely to be impaired by the consumption of
18 alcohol, the obvious starting point is that between
19 10.07 and 10.25 and 10.44 and 11.10 he had consumed the
20 equivalent of more than four whiskeys before setting off
21 to drive later that evening. That is the obvious
22 starting point, isn't it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Given that that quantity of alcohol was consumed during
25 that period of time -- and we know the time that the car

149

1 was driven away from the back of the Ritz -- would you
2 have felt comfortable or would you recommend any person
3 to drive a car having consumed that amount of alcohol so
4 shortly before driving guests away from the Ritz Hotel?
5 A. If it's so shortly before, clearly no, because we know
6 that alcohol impairs motor function, cognitive function
7 and those kind of things, and inevitably, you know, it
8 may have a detrimental effect.
9 Q. Going back to the question that you were asked, the
10 reason why I suggested that the impression given at the
11 press conference was misleading is because it didn't
12 give that indication to the media that was assembled in
13 front of it.
14 A. To be honest -- I mean, I confine my role in the press
15 conference --
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The Professor wasn't the
17 organiser of this press conference. You have other
18 people that you can have a go at on this. It does seem
19 to me that it's pretty peripheral from the point of view
20 of his evidence.
21 MR MACLEOD: Let us turn to the evidence itself, Professor.
22 Can I deal first with the samples that were collected on
23 31st August 1997 from Henri Paul and try to look at the
24 evidential matrix to see whether one can be satisfied
25 that these samples were from Henri Paul or not.

150

1 A. Right.
2 Q. The first starting point, isn't it, is that there was
3 only one autopsy undertaken at the Institut Medico-Legal
4 on 31st August and that was of Henri Paul?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It's clear from the photographs of the naked body of
7 Henri Paul that that body was marked, with a readily
8 observable label, "2147".
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The first blood sample that was submitted to
11 Professor Ricordel gave an alcohol reading of 1.87.
12 A. Yes, I believe so, yes.
13 Q. That was from a sample container of blood labelled
14 "2147".
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All those factors indicate that that was a sample from
17 Henri Paul on their face?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. A blood sample taken from the same batch of samples,
20 collected on 31st August, was submitted by the French
21 authorities for DNA analysis; you know that, don't you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. It provided a 99.999 per cent matching profile to that
24 of Henri Paul's mother.
25 A. Yes.

151

1 Q. A liver sample also collected on 31st August, amongst
2 the same batches said to have been taken from
3 Henri Paul, was also submitted by the French authorities
4 for DNA analysis.
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. That gave a matching identical profile.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Taking those factors into account, is it not the case
9 that unless the DNA analysis has also gone wrong, that
10 that is compelling evidence that the blood sampled by
11 Professor Ricordel was from the same batch of samples
12 that the DNA blood came from and provides fair evidence
13 to indicate that that blood/alcohol reading related to
14 Henri Paul?
15 A. The DNA sample was taken from blood which was not tested
16 for alcohol, was it?
17 Q. That's correct, but it's from the same batch of samples
18 that were taken.
19 A. Well, yes, I mean -- from the same batch of samples --
20 it wasn't tested immediately and under what conditions
21 was it stored until it was tested?
22 Q. No, but do you not concede that if those two samples,
23 both the liver and the blood, were amongst the same
24 batch of samples, that that gives a reasonable
25 indication that the other sample reported to be taken at

152

1 the same time was indeed that of Henri Paul's?
2 A. I think I see where you are coming from, and it is one
3 view to take, but also one must bear in mind problems
4 with the chain of custody and how they were labelled,
5 et cetera, where they were stored, when the samples were
6 looked at for DNA and all that. That's where the
7 problem arises, I am afraid.
8 Q. The same problem, of course, the pre-analytical issues,
9 would apply to the liver sample as to the blood sample?
10 A. Of course.
11 Q. That was tested for DNA and proved to be an identical
12 match.
13 A. With the liver sample, yes, indeed.
14 Q. The same problems related to the sample of blood in
15 pre-analytical issues which was not tested, but was
16 collected from the same body at the same time, and that
17 gave an identical match.
18 A. Yes, I mean, certainly the liver tissue obviously had
19 come from Henri Paul to show the same DNA match, but on
20 the other hand, again, I have to say that I can only go
21 as far as my own expertise in this -- and I accept there
22 is 99.5, did you say?
23 Q. 99.99 recurring.
24 A. Okay, I accept that, but I don't know enough about DNA
25 to be able to criticise any of the testing. But

153

1 I accept that it looks pretty convincing.
2 Q. Pretty convincing providing the DNA results can be
3 relied on?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, secondly, the control sample, if I can call it
6 that, that was analysed by Dr Pepin. He carried out
7 toxicological tests on the blood reported to have been
8 taken from Henri Paul on 31st August from the same batch
9 of samples; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Those toxicological tests revealed, in the blood,
12 Fluoxetine, Norfluoxetine and Tiapride.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now in all the analysis that has been gone over of these
15 results, there is nothing to indicate that those tests
16 are other than accurate?
17 A. Yes, I mean, I think the toxicologists will verify that,
18 yes.
19 Q. We know that Henri Paul had been prescribed the
20 self-same combination of drugs, Prozac and Tiapride.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That is another compelling evidential example that this
23 blood is likely to have come from Henri Paul, is it not?
24 A. Well, I mean, if you put it that way, it's -- he has
25 been prescribed the same medicine as what was found in

154

1 that blood -- I mean, Prozac is a very common drug that
2 is used throughout. I don't know about Tiapride, but
3 certainly Prozac is an extremely common drug that's used
4 in the population.
5 Q. If we were to be taking the circumstances of the autopsy
6 on 31st August, where Henri Paul was the only body to be
7 autopsied that day, and build in a hypothetical
8 opportunity for confusion of blood samples, if they were
9 confused with another corpse -- and there is no autopsy
10 that day, but if they were -- that corpse would have to
11 have been, one, consuming alcohol shortly before his
12 death, and, two, would have to have been prescribed
13 Prozac and Tiapride?
14 A. And have a carboxyhaemoglobin level of 20 per cent or so
15 as well. I mean, the point is that --
16 Q. That's right, isn't it?
17 A. Yes, I mean -- yes, I take your point. But my worry is
18 that -- the fact that Professor Lecomte tells us first
19 of all she has taken five blood samples, then she has
20 taken three and then we see two bottles of blood before
21 the body has been opened, from my mind -- I mean, I am
22 certainly in doubt as to the provenance of that blood
23 based on that scenario, I am afraid.
24 Q. Would it be fair to say that what has occurred here,
25 when you were instructed by Mr Al Fayed, is that, from

155

1 the time of the press conference onwards, you and other
2 experts have looked at the French forensic investigation
3 and put a fine-tooth comb over it to see whether there
4 are any factors or issues that could possibly cast doubt
5 on the readings of the blood/alcohol?
6 A. It wasn't just that, but there were lots of things that
7 were actually popping out of the page at us in terms of
8 the way that the whole chain of custody was carried out.
9 Q. There is no issue about that. That is agreed. I think
10 Professor Forrest is completely in agreement with that.
11 There were second experts instructed by Mr Al Fayed at
12 least, weren't there?
13 A. Yes, but the point is it's important to put it into
14 context that we weren't just trying to justify -- or we
15 weren't trying to justify a particular position; we were
16 looking at it objectively, and there were all these
17 inconsistencies coming up --
18 Q. What I am trying to do with you, Professor, is look at
19 the opposite side of the coin and see where the
20 consistencies lie. Do you understand?
21 A. Sure, I understand.
22 Q. These are all consistencies that I have outlined to you,
23 aren't they?
24 A. They are -- they can be, yes.
25 Q. If we take other samples taken on 31st August,

156

1 notwithstanding the pre-analytical issues which have
2 been identified -- take urine, for example. First of
3 all the alcohol reading in the urine is at a level
4 consistent with the blood/alcohol reading.
5 A. Yes. I mean --
6 Q. Consistent that the urine and the blood samples were
7 taken from the same body?
8 A. Well, it's all consistent if you accept the chain of
9 custody and you accept the provenance of the samples.
10 Q. In addition, the urine also contained the self-same
11 combination of drugs as the blood?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The blood, with other tissues such as the spinal cord,
14 also displayed the self-same combination?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And the hair?
17 A. Yes, with Tiapride, yes.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Were you in court when
19 Professor Forrest used the expression "comfortably
20 satisfied", which alerted the interest of the lawyers?
21 A. I was, sir, yes.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I will be corrected if I am
23 wrong, but my recollection is that he said that he was
24 comfortably satisfied in relation to Henri Paul's
25 blood/alcohol being in the region of twice the legal

157

1 limit in this country, taking the situation as a whole.
2 He said that "comfortably satisfied" wasn't the same as
3 the criminal standard of proof of being sure, but he
4 felt that he was comfortably satisfied, which was
5 something more than balance of probabilities.
6 I haven't been corrected so I assume that I have
7 broadly got that right. Do you subscribe to that view?
8 A. I wouldn't use the phrase "balance of probabilities",
9 sir, because that would bring statistics into it.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, no, he used the expression
11 "comfortably satisfied", which I think is rather better
12 than "balance of probabilities" from the proof point of
13 view, he was saying.
14 A. I would still have some nagging doubts because of the
15 whole way the thing has been conducted in terms of chain
16 of custody, which I think nevertheless is an important
17 issue, despite the fact that there seem to be
18 consistencies.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Some nagging doubts?
20 A. Yes.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But would you accept more likely
22 than not that he was in the region of twice the limit?
23 A. Well, if I was a toxicologist and I had done the
24 experiments and I knew exactly the equipment that was
25 used, I would be able to answer that question in a more

158

1 definitive way, sir.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So the answer is: you would
3 rather not answer the question?
4 A. I would rather not answer the question.
5 MR MACLEOD: Perhaps we can put it this way: the factors
6 that I have been outlining to you, to your mind, as a
7 professor of forensic medicine, are compelling features
8 of the evidence to indicate that the batches taken from
9 Henri Paul or reported to be taken from Henri Paul are
10 likely to be from Henri Paul?
11 A. There are consistencies, and certainly in terms of it
12 being likely to be from Henri Paul, I come back to the
13 fact that we have DNA where we don't have a toxicology
14 concentration in any of the DNA samples. I believe in
15 the liver perhaps we would have Fluoxetine, but then
16 again that's an extremely common drug, so ... I have got
17 my doubts. I mean, I haven't got my doubts; I am just
18 slightly hesitant to give a definitive opinion on this.
19 Q. If we take another sample that was taken on the same
20 collective batch on 31st August by Professor Lecomte,
21 which is vitreous humour.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now if we know that one of the blood samples that was in
24 the same batch, the liver sample that was in the same
25 batch of samples, both identical profiles for DNA, and

159

1 the third tissue sample, vitreous humour, again reported
2 from the same batch to be of Henri Paul with the number
3 2147, gave an alcohol reading of 1.73, if that came from
4 Henri Paul, that is an almost conclusive indication as
5 to the likely level of alcohol that was in his system at
6 the time of death, is it not?
7 A. Certainly the vitreous humour would be uncontaminated
8 and it would certainly reflect a more accurate level of
9 alcohol in that vitreous humour, yes.
10 Q. It is the best indicator?
11 A. It is in these circumstances, yes.
12 Q. Of the two samples that have been subbed(?) for DNA,
13 they have both been confirmed to be an identical match,
14 the vitreous humour came from the same batch, is that
15 not compelling evidence that Henri Paul, at the time of
16 his death, had a blood/alcohol reading in the region of
17 1.73?
18 A. In terms of -- well, again, I come back to this chain of
19 custody issue and I come back to how the examination was
20 carried out, and I would rather a toxicologist answer
21 that question more definitively, sir.
22 Q. No, Professor Vanezis, I am asking you. This is
23 a common sense matter as much as anything that has been
24 indicated. These chain of custody matters are a matter
25 of common sense, looking at the evidence fairly and

160

1 objectively.
2 A. Yes, indeed.
3 Q. A batch of samples was taken for forensic analysis;
4 correct?
5 A. Okay, I will put it another way --
6 Q. We know what the inadequacies are. Professor Forrest
7 has said, taking into account all the pre-analytical
8 issues, given the range of other factors impinging on
9 this question, he can be comfortably satisfied that
10 Henri Paul's blood was in the region of 1.73 at the time
11 of his death. Now, I have given you the evidence. I am
12 asking you, as a forensic scientist, looking fairly and
13 objectively at that evidence, to indicate that it is the
14 case, is it not, that the sequence of evidence that
15 I have just outlined to you is compelling evidence that
16 that vitreous humour was likely to have come from
17 Henri Paul and is virtually conclusive of the alcohol
18 level in his body?
19 A. Provided the toxicology has been carried out correctly,
20 that would seem to be the case, yes.
21 Q. Are you aware of any problems with the toxicology on the
22 vitreous humour sample?
23 A. Well, I would defer that to my toxicology colleagues, if
24 I may.
25 Q. Thank you. Can I turn to the second feature, which

161

1 I suggest adds a further layer of evidential value to
2 this question. It's the samples taken from Henri Paul
3 by Dr Campana on 4th September 1997. We know that on
4 this occasion there is no problem with -- and I am using
5 this word carefully -- the pre-analytical issues.
6 A. In terms of where the sample was taken from.
7 Q. And in their labelling, et cetera, et cetera, that's all
8 very clear and understood?
9 A. From what I have seen, certainly I have seen the
10 bottles, and although it says "cardiac" on it, it had on
11 top of it the actual words "FG" or "FD" on it, yes.
12 Q. I think the lid and the label, "2147, Henri Paul", they
13 identify the site on the labels, it's done under the
14 supervision of a judge and the samples are taken
15 immediately in the presence of two medical experts?
16 A. Yes, I accept that, yes.
17 Q. The samples of blood are taken from the best available
18 site, the femoral vein?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. They are given straight to Dr Pepin for analysis?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. They are tested immediately?
23 A. Sorry, when you say "they are tested immediately"?
24 Q. That very same day.
25 A. I can't remember exactly when they were tested. Could

162

1 you just remind me?
2 Q. Well, take it from me that they were tested on
3 4th September.
4 A. Fine.
5 Q. That gave an alcohol reading of 1.75, very close to the
6 vitreous humour reading?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So the two best sites give a directly consistent
9 blood/alcohol reading?
10 A. They do.
11 Q. That was blood from the left femoral?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Taken under ideal circumstances, in the words of
14 Professor Forrest, which is what they should have done
15 in the first place?
16 A. Yes, the only problem, of course, is I think they went
17 back five days later and they couldn't get much blood
18 and they had to massage the leg, so that was the only
19 slight problem with it.
20 Q. Yes. That might give a variation in the reading by
21 about 10 per cent.
22 A. That is right.
23 Q. But we are not worried about that type of variation,
24 Professor.
25 A. The ideal circumstances would have been they should have

163

1 taken it on the first day.
2 Q. That blood was also subject to toxicology?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It revealed Fluoxetine, Norfluoxetine and Tiapride?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Entirely consistent with the prescriptions taken by
7 Henri Paul?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Subsequently blood that was not used for testing or from
10 the right femoral was obtained by --
11 MR KEEN: I don't know if that was a slip by my learned
12 friend, but it wasn't blood from the right femoral that
13 was ever tested. The right femoral was retained by IML,
14 as the Paget report records, and handed over to the
15 Metropolitan Police some years later. The blood sample
16 that was handed to Dr Pepin was the left femoral. Maybe
17 it was just a slip.
18 MR MACLEOD: That's exactly what I said and I am shown it in
19 the transcript.
20 MR KEEN: Perhaps I misheard. I thought it referred to the
21 right.
22 MR MACLEOD: If I could continue? So there is no confusion
23 as a result of that, left femoral blood, consistent
24 reading of alcohol, subjected to toxicology, self-same
25 combination of drugs that Henri Paul was prescribed and

164

1 taking at the time of the accident?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Later, right femoral blood, obtained by Operation Paget,
4 taken at the same time, under the same closely
5 supervised conditions by Judge Stephan, Dr Campana and
6 Dr Pepin, submitted to an independent forensic
7 laboratory in London for DNA analysis --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- LGC Forensics, and an identical DNA match was
10 obtained.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Leaving aside what was happening later, with the CDT,
13 that is again a quite separate but interlocking and
14 additional layer of compelling evidence to indicate that
15 Henri Paul had a blood/alcohol level in the region of
16 twice the UK legal limit?
17 A. Yes, taken on that sort of face value and under those
18 conditions, I would agree, yes.
19 Q. I am not going to deal with all the factual background
20 which I dealt with Professor Forrest about,
21 Mr Henri Paul and his personal circumstances, but
22 a sample of blood was sent to Bordeaux to
23 Dr Dumestre Toulet for CDT analysis. Just dealing with
24 the apparent results of that test first.
25 A. Sure.

165

1 Q. The apparent result of that test indicated that the
2 person from whom the blood had been taken had been
3 drinking heavily for at least a week leading up to the
4 crash.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. From what we know of the factual evidence relating to
7 Henri Paul's prescription for an alcohol dependency
8 problem, that may be a factor that would fit with
9 Henri Paul's own concern about his dependency on
10 alcohol, wouldn't it?
11 A. It may be. My concern, of course, is the reliability of
12 CDT tests, and again I would defer that part of the
13 question to toxicologists.
14 Q. So be it. Dealing with the chain of custody issue, when
15 Dr Dumestre Toulet reported that the seal was intact --
16 you remember you were asked questions by Mr Keen?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- it is the case, is it not, that if Dr Pepin broke the
19 tamperproof seal when he carried out his analysis on
20 4th September, that there is a system in France where
21 the container, if it's then to be sent to another
22 laboratory, containing the blood sample, can be placed
23 in an envelope and the scientist himself will put his
24 own wax seal on the envelope --
25 A. Yes.

166

1 Q. -- to mark the chain of continuity between the
2 laboratory and the second laboratory.
3 A. Yes, I understand that, yes.
4 Q. But the original tamperproof seal will have been broken?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now I appreciate that there are other difficulties in
7 relation to Dr Pepin's recollection of events and he is
8 not here, but just dealing with the seal intact issue,
9 that is one possible explanation as to what might have
10 been referred to, namely Dr Pepin's seal was still
11 intact when it was opened by Dr Dumestre Toulet?
12 A. Yes. If it refers to seal intact, it may well possibly
13 have been done in that way, yes.
14 Q. Dealing with the envelope matter, is there a part of
15 that envelope that says "re-sent" in the bottom
16 right-hand corner?
17 A. I don't know. I am not sure.
18 Q. We are still anticipating Dr Dumestre Toulet will come
19 and give evidence about that.
20 Finally, can I ask you about -- can I ask that
21 [INQ0051813 - link to follow] be put up please. That doesn't sound
22 right. I don't think that's it. In your report which
23 you gave pursuant to the direction of the Coroner on
24 27th May 2005 at page 14, if you have it in front of
25 you -- and while you are looking that out, maybe the

167

1 jury could open their toxicological bundle of documents
2 at page 13A -- or is it 12A? It's the Andreux document.
3 A. Is it possible to have a copy, please?
4 Q. Of your report?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. This is your report of 27th July 2005.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Will this take some time because
8 we ought really to have a break pretty soon.
9 MR MACLEOD: No, sir. I will be very quick.
10 MR KEEN: The INQ is [INQ0051957 - link to follow] if my learned friend wants
11 to put it on the screen.
12 MR MACLEOD: Thank you. That is not the document either.
13 I will read it to you. It's page 14 of your report. It
14 is dealing with the labelling and the pre-analytical
15 issues at the 31st August autopsy.
16 "It's not clear when the specimens were labelled,
17 [you write] immediately following removal from the body
18 or sometime later, however M Andreux has stated that
19 since the autopsy was performed at a weekend ...", and
20 you go on to say about the labels.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. One of the issues that has been raised is that on the
23 top of the document which records the number of samples
24 which were taken appears the name "Andreux".
25 A. Yes.

168

1 Q. Is it right that that is a name from somebody who was
2 a technician at the IML laboratory?
3 A. Possibly.
4 Q. You have obviously seen a statement from M Andreux.
5 A. Yes, seen it somewhere, yes, indeed, yes. Sorry, I am
6 not sure what to answer.
7 Q. It's been raised as an issue that this might be a corpse
8 lying around that might have been confused; there might
9 have been confusion with a deceased person by the name
10 of "Andreux". You have obviously seen a statement from
11 Mr Andreux who speaks about the labelling. I think it
12 is probably to do with the legal proceedings that have
13 been brought by Mr Al Fayed against Professor Lecomte
14 and Dr Pepin.
15 A. Yes, I may well have seen one. It would be useful to
16 refresh my memory on that one, to be honest with you.
17 Q. If you could just confirm this. If you say in your
18 report, "However, M Andreux has stated that since the
19 autopsy was performed at a weekend, the adhesive labels
20 could not be printed out because the secretariat did not
21 work at weekends. Accordingly specimens were put into a
22 box, which in turn was put into the cold room and the
23 labels printed out later", that is obviously a person
24 who is something to do with IML, isn't it?
25 A. Sure.

169

1 Q. These are documents that are only in the possession of
2 Mr Al Fayed as being a "partie civile" to --
3 A. Yes, I believe so, yes.
4 MR MACLEOD: Thank you.
5 Sir, that's all I would ask.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will break off for the
7 afternoon break.
8 (3.25 pm)
9 (A short break)
10 (3.40 pm)
11 (Jury present)
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, Mr Hilliard.
13 MR HILLIARD: There is nothing I want to ask. I am very
14 grateful.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you, Professor. That's all
16 we require.
17 (The witness withdrew)
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Then Professor Oliver.
19 PROFESSOR JOHN OLIVER (sworn)
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would you prefer to sit or stand?
21 A. I will sit, please, thank you.
22 Questions from MR HILLIARD
23 MR HILLIARD: Are you Professor John Oliver?
24 A. I am.
25 Q. Are you still employed as professor of forensic

170

1 toxicology at the University of Glasgow?
2 A. No, I am emeritus professor of forensic toxicology at
3 the University of Glasgow in that I retired just two
4 years ago.
5 Q. I think before your retirement, is this right, you have
6 been employed in the field of forensic toxicology since
7 1966?
8 A. I joined the department as a research assistant in 1966.
9 I assisted with the introduction of alcohol analysis for
10 the purposes of the Road Safety Act of 1967 and I was
11 first authorised as an analyst in 1969.
12 Q. I am looking at a statement you made on 25th May 2005 in
13 which you explain then that you were a chartered
14 scientist, a chartered chemist and a fellow of the Royal
15 Society of Chemistry.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Professor, I think you have been in court, is this
18 right, and you have heard Professor Forrest,
19 Professor Shepherd and Professor Vanezis give their
20 evidence?
21 A. I have.
22 Q. I am just looking at the statement you made. I don't
23 know if you have a copy of it there, the one you made in
24 May 2005. Do you have it there?
25 A. I do not have that particular copy with me, unless it's

171

1 in here.
2 Q. We will see if we can manage without it.
3 A. Indeed.
4 Q. Professor, in that statement you make reference to the
5 report dated December of 1997. (Handed) Do you
6 remember the one that I was asking Professor Vanezis
7 about?
8 A. Yes, this was from the Chambers of Mr Hodge Malek,
9 correct.
10 Q. You were a signatory to that report as well, we heard,
11 the 1997 one.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Professor, as with Professor Vanezis, it's convenient
14 with you to look, if we may, at some of the opinions.
15 I think there are just three areas I am going to ask you
16 about, three areas that you dealt with in that report,
17 to see if your views have or haven't changed in the
18 light of further information you have received, and if
19 they have changed, why they have changed.
20 A. Thank you.
21 Q. Lastly, by way of introduction, before we come to the
22 three topics, you will appreciate, having sat in court,
23 that these issues can subdivide in many different ways,
24 but one division that has been used has been issues
25 which go to who the samples came from, the chain of

172

1 custody issues and so on --
2 A. Quite.
3 Q. -- and, secondly, the results themselves. So assume for
4 the purposes of that topic that the samples all came
5 from Henri Paul, are the results consistent with each
6 other, are there any odd features and so on. I want to
7 ask you about three issues that really go to the second
8 part, if you subdivide it in that way.
9 In your witness statement, at the bottom of the
10 first page you deal, as you say, with the meeting in
11 Mr Malek's chambers in November of 1997, by which time
12 you had been provided, is this right, with details of
13 the toxicological investigations?
14 A. Yes, Maitre Brizay, the French judge, appeared with the
15 documents in French for the pathology and the toxicology
16 investigation, and at that particular meeting we split
17 into two groups, myself with Professor Mangin from
18 Lausanne, whose French(sic) is a lot better than my
19 schoolboy French, and we went through the toxicology in
20 detail.
21 From going through this particular toxicology, we
22 had an alcohol level, we had the drugs that came in, we
23 also had a non-reported carboxyhaemoglobin with the
24 trace from the instrument, and I was -- I have to say
25 that I pointed out and said, "Look, what is this?", and

173

1 they said, "This is carboxyhaemoglobin, this is their
2 annotation of it", and it had never been reported in the
3 French documentation at that point. So that was
4 effectively one of my criticisms of this particular set
5 of events.
6 Apart from that, the unexplained carboxyhaemoglobin
7 I was quite satisfied with the results as they were
8 because I had made an assumption that the standards
9 under which they were conducted and taken from sample to
10 laboratory was the standards that I was used to with the
11 pathologists in the United Kingdom that I have dealt
12 with, and labelled at source and brought through. So if
13 we can assume that there was a tight chain of custody,
14 then I do not change my views on what was there at that
15 time.
16 Q. Right. Professor, I am looking at the top of the second
17 page, if it helps you, of your statement, second
18 paragraph down, where you said this:
19 "My involvement was the examination of the
20 toxicology details."
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Obviously you are now speaking in May 2005, but looking
23 back at the work you did. You say:
24 "I was satisfied that this work had been carried out
25 appropriately. At the time I was concerned by the

174

1 single analysis for alcohol measurements, but felt that
2 the corroboration of a reported level in blood from the
3 measured level in urine was adequate."
4 A. Yes, I just assumed that this was a French way of doing
5 things because effectively, had this been in my own
6 laboratory, everything would have been carried through
7 in duplicate. So you would actually have corroboration
8 within the run itself.
9 Q. You went on to say, and as you have told us:
10 "My main concern was the finding of the analytical
11 results relating to carbon monoxide
12 (carboxyhaemoglobin). Although levels were measured in
13 the laboratory, no mention of these levels appeared in
14 the toxicology details presented."
15 You have just been telling us about that.
16 A. Correct, indeed.
17 Q. You say:
18 "It was our view that the carboxyhaemoglobin levels
19 should be addressed by Dr Pepin. I have not changed my
20 views."
21 Do you see?
22 A. From my perspective, the carboxyhaemoglobin findings
23 were not explained by the above medical report, yes,
24 I have not changed my views. Sorry, I have jumped
25 a section. Correct.

175

1 Q. Do you see, "It was our view that the carboxyhaemoglobin
2 levels should be addressed by Dr Pepin. I have not
3 changed my views". I don't know, is it still your view
4 that the work, so far as the analysis was concerned,
5 leaving aside chain of custody issues, was carried out
6 appropriately or not?
7 A. At the time, yes, I was quite happy with the work that
8 was carried out. I think it gave a fair representation
9 of the drugs and alcohol present in the samples
10 allegedly from Henri Paul. I have no way of going back
11 to that because again we have that standard. We have
12 certainly seen more documentation since then, but again,
13 at the time, it seems to be the fair assessment of the
14 levels reported.
15 Q. Right. I am not, as I say, talking about chain of
16 custody issues, but even in the light of all the
17 material you have had since, is it still your view that
18 the work appears to have been carried out accurately?
19 A. With respect to the analysis that I could see for
20 alcohol, the initial analysis by Ricordel at 1.80 and
21 the analysis by Dr Pepin of "cardiac blood", the
22 difference between them is certainly within the possible
23 variation in blood samples in that plus or minus three
24 standard deviations would actually take in all of the
25 analytical deviations there. That was fine.

176

1 I was upset -- and I think this was recorded in the
2 Paget report -- when I saw the transposition of
3 an alcohol result to another blood sample. That to me
4 would never ever happen in a laboratory, to my
5 knowledge, in the United Kingdom. I would be very angry
6 if it did. Transposition is not on. You actually have
7 to identify the blood sample you are taking it from and
8 report on that blood sample. You don't know if this
9 other blood sample has been compromised or not, so you
10 cannot transpose results like that.
11 Finally, when I got told of the analysis at a later
12 date -- again it was through Paget, and I think
13 Professor Forrest actually said that, I think inverted
14 commas, "John Oliver will not like this" -- I think
15 those were his words -- and I don't, and this is the
16 recalculation of a sample -- I think he identified this
17 particular blood sample and suggested that this is
18 perhaps because they used an outdated standard, standard
19 curve.
20 Q. This is the 1.80 reported as 1.75 --
21 A. Exactly.
22 Q. -- from the 4th September one?
23 A. Apart from that. I just don't like that because in my
24 own laboratory, had anything like that happened, it
25 would be back to basics, total recalibration of the

177

1 instrumentation and a re-analysis of the specimen, not
2 a recalculation based on a standard, a quality assurance
3 standard. What we don't know when they do this is where
4 the mistake has been made. Has the calibration drifted?
5 If you are not going to calibrate every day, you don't
6 know. Has the dilution factor for that analytical
7 standard been wrong or has there been a difficulty with
8 the dilution factor of the blood?
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Can you hear all right, members
10 of the jury, or are you having difficulty? Just about.
11 MR HILLIARD: Turn the volume up a bit.
12 You were just talking, because you may have lost
13 your thread -- do you remember -- about 1.80 reported as
14 1.75.
15 A. Exactly. That is an area where I would be extremely
16 unhappy in that effectively you do not know where the
17 error has come in to that particular specimen. Has it
18 been a dilution error in that the solids have been held
19 back and we have had a watery-type specimen going into
20 the diluter to dilute with the internal standard which
21 would give an artificially high level? Has it been
22 a mistake with the identification of this standard which
23 they have used as a quality assurance? What he should
24 never have been doing is recalculating on an area where
25 you don't know where the error has occurred. Again,

178

1 they should have gone back to scratch and started again.
2 Q. Professor, do you have a copy there of your report of
3 December 1997, your 5th December 1997 report?
4 A. Give me a moment.
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Is this the joint ...?
7 Q. Yes. We have one I can let you have.
8 A. It's probably faster.
9 Q. Would that be quicker?
10 A. It would be quicker, I have to admit. (Handed)
11 Q. Professor, at page 4 there, where I have opened it, you
12 gave the results that had been reported for 31st August
13 and 4th September. Do you see that on that page,
14 paragraph 10 on page 4?
15 A. Yes, I am with you.
16 Q. You have Professor Ricordel's 1.87, do you remember, for
17 31st August?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Dr Pepin's 1.74 for that day?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Then you give the urine figure, 2.18 -- do you
22 remember --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- for 31st August.
25 A. Yes.

179

1 Q. The vitreous humour, 1.73; the stomach 1.91.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Do you see that? You say this:
4 "The readings all point to the tail-end absorption
5 of fairly recent alcoholic drink."
6 So that's consistent with Mr Paul having had drink
7 in the Ritz before the crash. You then go on to say
8 that the urine reading is consistent with and supportive
9 of the blood readings.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What I want to know is this: you can see there that the
12 vitreous humour reading -- do you see that at 1.73 --
13 A. Indeed.
14 Q. -- that there is no reference in this report to there
15 being anything odd about, as it were, the whole of the
16 results. Do you see what I mean? If you assumed they
17 came from Mr Paul, that his vitreous humour was 1.73,
18 his blood 1.74, and so on -- do you see -- you have not,
19 I think, said anything in this report about there being
20 anything odd --
21 A. I said nothing about vitreous humour. I have given you
22 the level as reported because, effectively, at that
23 time, I was not aware of any correlation studies between
24 alcohol in blood and in vitreous humour. The only time
25 that pathologists brought me a vitreous humour back was

180

1 in severely compromised body specimens and it was a last
2 resort to prove exposure to alcohol because it's in this
3 encapsulated environment.
4 I think there are papers -- and I think where
5 Professor Johnston follows me, there are papers showing
6 the unacceptable variability of alcohol levels in
7 vitreous humour. So I would not read too much into the
8 vitreous humour as corroborating blood. It is similar
9 to it, it may well be corroborating it, it may well be
10 1.2, but again we have to look at the potential for
11 a variation between these.
12 Q. What I want to know from you is this: you are not
13 saying, as I understand it, that there is anything, as
14 it were, inconsistent with these results amongst
15 themselves that means they couldn't have come from the
16 same person? That is all I want to establish.
17 A. No, I am not saying that, indeed.
18 Q. The second of the three matters is this: if you would
19 just be kind enough, please, to turn on to paragraph 20.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You say there:
22 "Looking at the overall picture, it may be fairly
23 observed that Mr Paul had an alcohol problem and he
24 drank high levels of alcohol regularly."
25 It looks as if what follows in brackets there was

181

1 probably meant to be a reference to the report on the
2 CDT test.
3 A. Possibly. I can't -- this is so far back now that
4 I can't remember that, but again CDT testing is not my
5 area. It's more clinical biochemistry and
6 Professor Johnston will deal with that.
7 Q. Did you have anything else in mind or can you help us
8 with what indeed you had in mind? Do you see 20 -- if
9 I just read it because the jury don't have it.
10 "Looking at the overall picture, it may be fairly
11 observed that he had an alcohol problem and drank high
12 levels of alcohol regularly."
13 Do you know now what you had in mind there?
14 A. I think basically it was a report of Henri Paul's
15 videoclip footage in that he was not, in fact, seen to
16 be grossly impaired from alcohol. I think it was that.
17 We were putting in an inference at that point and that's
18 where this has come from.
19 Q. All right, because it was your view that -- I think you
20 go on to say that he might appear to be walking normally
21 and that's not surprising because you say a habitual
22 heavy drinker would build up a degree of tolerance.
23 A. Indeed, yes. In fact I do have a paper here which shows
24 lack of effect or lack of observed effect in
25 individuals. It should be in here some place.

182

1 "Tolerance at high blood/alcohol concentrations in the
2 study of 110 cases and review of the literature", which
3 I can present to the court.
4 Q. You heard Professor Forrest speak about that. Do you
5 have any difference from him?
6 A. Yes, I do, because I think effectively, in this
7 particular paper, where people are alcoholics, a very
8 high percentage of them, up to a level of 200, had no
9 clinical signs whatsoever of impairment. Again these
10 are all listed in this. It's from the Journal of
11 Forensic Sciences.
12 Q. You differ from Professor Forrest in that, what, you
13 think you can have a higher level and not show any
14 signs --
15 A. Exactly, and that basically is coming from here
16 (indicated) and also from my own experience with
17 casework.
18 Q. Then last topic, Professor. You dealt with it in this
19 report at paragraph 22 and onwards. It's just the
20 question of carboxyhaemoglobin.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. First of all, the 12.8 per cent reading from the femoral
23 sample, Professor Forrest, do you remember, thought that
24 that could come from a smoker?
25 A. It's possible to come from a smoker, a heavy smoker.

183

1 Now, I think this is something that we have debated over
2 a number of years, if not months -- years, as to how you
3 could get to such a level. Certainly the literature
4 that we have looked at does show that the bulk of
5 smoking would be up to about 10/11 per cent and the odd
6 case would be coming up over 12/15 per cent, but it's
7 high for a smoker.
8 Q. We have evidence, you know, of Mr Paul apparently going
9 out at the front of the hotel and smoking -- I think it
10 was the cigarillos that he used to smoke.
11 A. Professor Forrest met me in Edinburgh and handed me --
12 he seemed to think I was being starved of information by
13 Mr Al Fayed's team -- and he met me in Edinburgh, we had
14 lunch together and he did give me a video provided by
15 the Paget team, a disk provided by the Paget team, which
16 was annotated, showing --
17 Q. When he was out having a --
18 A. -- showing him out having the cigarette, cigarillos,
19 et cetera. I alerted the Paget team and we have all
20 actually gone through and looked at -- not the Paget
21 team, my colleagues -- and we have all gone through this
22 video and had a look at it. Again, yes, there is
23 successive smoking there but it's in the fresh air, he
24 is not smoking in the hotel. I am not sure that you
25 would achieve these sorts of levels.

184

1 Q. Do you rule it out altogether or just --
2 A. I don't rule it out altogether, it's a possibility.
3 Q. The last topic is the reading of over 20 per cent.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I just want to give you the figures. There were three
6 figures reported --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- so far as this was concerned by Dr Pepin. They were,
9 do you remember, 20.7 per cent, 21 per cent and
10 21.4 per cent.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. The conclusion was reported as 20.7, but there were
13 those three readings. Do you remember that
14 Professor Forrest was essentially talking about the
15 possibility of artefact. That was really, I think, all
16 he could think of.
17 A. He was talking about the possibility of artefact. He
18 did mention the CO-oximeter as an unsuitable device in
19 the forensic toxicology laboratory --
20 Q. Can I ask you this, before you go on. I don't know if
21 you have seen this, since then he has just produced
22 a reference to a paper in 2000 by somebody,
23 Robert Malbosc, who was talking, as it appears, about
24 the undesirability, where post-mortem samples are
25 concerned, of using the sort of equipment that was

185

1 employed here. Have you seen that?
2 A. I think I did briefly see it last night. Is that the
3 Elsevier one in 2003?
4 Q. No, it's 2000, actually. (Pause) Don't worry if you
5 can't lay your hands on it, but I think I have
6 summarised it, I hope fairly. But more generally
7 speaking you understand that what he was talking -- do
8 you remember the question of, well, had there been some
9 contamination of the samples from, for example,
10 marrow --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- from broken bones, whether it came from a broken
13 vertebrae and if the sample had come from the neck or if
14 it had come from the chest cavity from broken ribs, and
15 queried whether those, on this particular sort of
16 equipment, could be producing, as it were,
17 an artefactual reading, an abnormally high one, that was
18 not in fact carboxyhaemoglobin at all but, as
19 I understand it, something that was giving the same sort
20 of reading. Is that as you understood it?
21 A. As I understood it, yes. Bone marrow, to my knowledge,
22 is a jelly-like substance, and if that is in the blood
23 sample and you try to aspirate this blood sample into
24 the instrument, you will block the aspiration tube, so
25 therefore you will have a fail.

186

1 With respect to putrefaction, which was the other
2 area that Professor Forrest was referring to, he refers
3 to this paper by Charles Winek from Pennsylvania, and
4 not from Luxembourg, and Donald Prex, and looking at the
5 effects of the changes, methaemoglobin, sulphaemoglobin,
6 et cetera, going into the blood sample, and there is
7 a reference to a value of 20 or 30 per cent higher or
8 lower carboxyhaemoglobin can result from shift to 1 to
9 2 nanometres. This particular group actually studied
10 the decomposition of blood or carboxyhaemoglobin in
11 blood, and they found -- never found an increase; it was
12 always a decrease in the level of the specimen.
13 Now the question is: is the CO-oximeter suitable for
14 a toxicology laboratory? It's not made for forensic
15 laboratories. Very few instruments are dedicated to
16 forensic laboratories. There are too few forensic
17 laboratories to make it worthwhile for manufacturers.
18 They are made for clinical biochemistry laboratories.
19 As forensic scientists or forensic toxicologists, we
20 have to -- and I use a round table -- adopt, adapt and
21 prove. We in fact look at equipment, we adopt this
22 equipment, we check it out, we make sure we can use it,
23 and I certainly, for most of my working life, have used
24 the CO-oximeter in blood samples of varying composition
25 with no problems whatsoever.

187

1 The times I couldn't use it was when the British
2 European Airways Viscount, on a test flight out of
3 Glasgow Airport, crashed into Ben More. At that stage
4 all we had were bits of tissue and we had to squeeze
5 blood out of the tissue. Therefore we then went on to
6 the degassing procedure, measuring it by gas
7 chromatography. It's very seldom that we have to ever
8 resort to that technique, and as I understand, since
9 I have left the department, that piece of equipment has
10 been scrapped because it's never used.
11 Q. I want to be clear. Are you saying that you can rule
12 out, in those results, the possibility that they are in
13 fact an artefactual result?
14 A. They are too consistent to be artefactual. They have
15 two techniques on a CO-oximeter which, had there been
16 sulphaemoglobin or methaemoglobin present, would have
17 triggered a warning to Dr Pepin. That is in the other
18 documents, 265 batch. It would have triggered a warning
19 to him.
20 The third method he used was an old fashioned
21 spectroscopic method of use, where you can actually see
22 the spectrum, and again even using the different
23 approach to it, albeit the same area looking at
24 absorptive spectrometry, he got a very similar result.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So blood from the chest cavity,

188

1 broken ribs giving rise possibly to bone marrow
2 contaminating the blood, that in your view couldn't
3 explain the reading of 20.8?
4 A. In my view it's purely speculation, trying a find a way
5 of getting an explanation for this. My only explanation
6 for this is purely an exposure somehow or other to
7 carbon monoxide. Now, where that has come from I have
8 no idea.
9 MR HILLIARD: In life, or after the sample has been taken?
10 Do you see what I mean? Because the sample is taken
11 when he dead taken.
12 A. Where would the source be in death, effectively?
13 Q. I am just asking you.
14 A. I cannot explain it and it still remains a total mystery
15 to me as to how Henri Paul -- we have checked, we have
16 made suggestions for broken manifolds, Professor Forrest
17 has checked out the airbag possibility from the
18 explosive charge in the airbag. We have not come up
19 with an explanation as to why this is carboxyhaemoglobin
20 present in that specimen.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If there was carboxyhaemoglobin
22 present to that level before he left the Ritz Hotel, it
23 would have been obvious from the way he was behaving,
24 wouldn't it?
25 A. It would have been very obvious, sir, from the way he

189

1 was behaving, because effectively it would actually be
2 starving his muscles of oxygen, he would also have
3 a headache, so he would never have come down the stairs
4 from the Ritz Hotel without stumbling, caused by muscle
5 weakness.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So is the answer really that you
7 cannot provide any scientific explanation for this?
8 A. Yes, I think we have to settle on unascertainable.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is that something that, in your
10 professional experience, happens from time to time? Or
11 should we draw any particular conclusions from it in
12 this case?
13 A. I know occasionally when the pathologists are looking
14 for a cause of death, you do occasionally have
15 an unascertainable because you cannot find anything.
16 But with the carbon monoxide I would like to say, and
17 I am not sure if I am actually allowed to speak about
18 it, but I have reviewed a case for a coroner in another
19 jurisdiction and again we have a carbon monoxide which
20 they tell me has been thoroughly investigated and is not
21 explainable. But again there was -- the colouration of
22 the lungs of the individual was pink, which you would
23 get from a carboxyhaemoglobin, and again we have a level
24 of carbon monoxide --
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So that's another unexplained

190

1 case?
2 A. Yes, I think it is.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But Professor Vanezis said that,
4 yes, this was unexplained but it's the sort of thing
5 that, given a chance to have got hold of Dr Pepin, he
6 might have been able to give an explanation.
7 A. I think we would have liked Dr Pepin to research it
8 thoroughly and go back through it, yes.
9 MR HILLIARD: Just finally this: in a note that he has
10 prepared, Professor Johnston has referred to
11 carboxyhaemoglobin results from a study of smokers, and
12 in a study in 1997 he just reports that the four highest
13 values were 17 per cent, 17.6 per cent, 18.2 per cent,
14 and 18.2 per cent, but then goes on to say:
15 "But these were considered to be unreliable
16 measurements."
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. I just want to ask you: are you sure that whatever was
19 giving the unreliable measurements for these people, can
20 we rule that out in this case? It's an obvious
21 question, isn't it?
22 A. I think you will find that that paper was a text, there
23 was a text message with it to Professor Johnston from
24 the author of the paper. Now, "unreliable" could very
25 well mean that they had not in fact calibrated the

191

1 instrument properly or there had been a gap in
2 calibrations, but I don't know -- again here I am going
3 into speculation -- I don't know why they were
4 unreliable.
5 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen, it's quarter past 4, and
7 I had indicated that we can't go on late tonight. How
8 long are you going to require with Professor Oliver?
9 MR KEEN: I suspect I will be at least 15 minutes and then
10 I suspect that Mr Macleod may want to -- I don't know if
11 he wants to ask some questions about press conferences
12 or whatever. I can't anticipate fully completing by
13 4.30.
14 I don't know if Professor Oliver is available
15 tomorrow morning?
16 A. I can get a train any time tomorrow back to Glasgow.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Right.
18 MR KEEN: I would be content just to commence now, or
19 I would be equally content if you decided to rise.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will adjourn now. We are
21 sitting at 9.30 tomorrow morning because we have
22 a videolink witness from Paris.
23 Now, the position with the videolink witness as
24 I understand it, although it's always extremely
25 difficult to get up to date information as to what's

192

1 happening with these witnesses, is that the witness --
2 this is Dr Melo -- has been served with notice of the
3 proceedings but has not responded. That usually means
4 no witness at 9.30 tomorrow morning, but we can't risk
5 it.
6 So if Professor Oliver can be here at 9.30 tomorrow
7 morning, we will either continue with his evidence then,
8 or we will hear the videolink witness and then continue
9 with his evidence.
10 How does that sound?
11 MR KEEN: Certainly for me, sir, that would be no difficulty
12 whatsoever.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
14 9.30, I am afraid, members of the jury. It may be
15 quite a long day tomorrow because we have a videolink
16 from America at 4 o'clock, but we will try and keep it
17 within bounds.
18 (4.15 pm)
19 (The Court adjourned until 9.30 am on
20 Thursday, 31st January 2008)
21
22
23
24
25

193

1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 Discussion re: jury bundle ....................... 1
4 documentation
5
6 PROFESSOR PETER VANEZIS (sworn) .................. 17
7
8 Questions from MR HILLIARD ................ 17
9
10 Questions from MR KEEN .................... 62
11
12 Questions from MR MACLEOD ................. 126
13
14 PROFESSOR JOHN OLIVER (sworn) .................... 170
15
16 Questions from MR HILLIARD ................ 170
17

194
 

<< Back