Bilderberg.org

[CJ]

Inquest set to question Lord Stevens over whether chauffeur was drunk..

...Henri Paul was not a Chauffeur.

It appears that Lord Stevens told Paul`s perents he was NOT drunk, this in November 2006. One month later, Lord Stevens concluded that Mr Paul had three times the French drink drive limit. This alcohol limit is much lower in France, than in the UK.

I have a feeling that Stevens wants to do the right thing and crack under questioning.

Source; BBC Ceefax.

[HeatISon]

where did you get this from?

[CJ]

It was in several national papers. I`m sure if you did a google search, you`d find something.

[TonyGosling]

STAGED EVENTS - Diana assassination breaking news
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/Archive.php?id=StagedEvents&all=1&orderby=Date&filter=Stgd_Diana

Diana's Driver Was Not Drunk
Daily Express / 19-06-2007

http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=2649
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/10445/Diana's+driver+was+not+drunk

THE inquest into Princess Diana’s death was last night plunged into fresh controversy.



It emerged that so called evidence against her chauffeur is flawed and unreliable.

Henri Paul’s “heavy drinking” has always been blamed for the crash which took place in a Paris tunnel in 1997.

But this key argument in exp-laining the deaths of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed as an accident is about to be blown apart.

Agents from Britain’s MI5 and French intelligence have been linked to Diana’s death and the question now being asked is: “Were blood samples from Mr Paul swapped to make it appear that he was responsible for the crash?”

Gaping holes in the evidence against Mr Paul have already been acknowledged by new coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker.

He said at a hearing last week: “I have some sympathy for the position of Henri Paul’s family, from what I have read so far. There are obviously some serious question marks there.”

Mr Paul’s parents have always maintained he was not an alcoholic and took his responsibilities as a driver seriously.
Sources close to the inquest have told the Daily Express that the blood tests which showed Mr Paul was drunk are not fit to be used as evidence and should be ruled as inadmissible. There is also a continuing court case in France against two medical experts who made serious mistakes in taking and analysing blood samples.

Both have refused to attend the Diana inquest which opens on October 2.

Toxicologist Dr Gilbert Pepin and forensic pathologist Dominique Lecomte are accused of performing the tests so badly it will be impossible to claim that Mr Paul was drunk at the time of the crash.

Michael Mansfield QC, representing Dodi’s father, Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed, has already told a pre-inquest hearing: “We need to know how those errors came to be made. There may be a sinister aspect.”

Sources last night told the Daily Express: “This issue will not be swept under the carpet.

“Where is the proof that Henri Paul was drunk on that terrible night? There is no doubt the tests were flawed and the judge now says there are serious question marks.

“Why are the two French experts, whose role is so important, refusing to give evidence? What have they got to hide?
“On that terrible night, when Diana and Dodi died, something sinister happened later in the mortuary to make a murder look like a simple traffic accident. The truth must be uncovered.”

French officials, the Daily Express has learned over a lengthy investigation, have compromised all the initial evidence.

It is feared blood samples which are said to prove that Mr Paul was high on drink and drugs may in fact belong to someone not connected to the crash. When Mr Paul’s body was transferred to the Place Mazas mortuary following the crash in August 1997, there were at least 24 other bodies there.

Lecomte worked through the night on the case at the Pitie Salpetriere hospital in Paris.

She then went to the city’s Medical Legal Institute to examine and report on Dodi and Mr Paul’s bodies.

But she faces severe criticism for a number of lapses, including:

Allowing blood samples taken from Mr Paul’s body to remain in an unguarded refrigerator for 24 hours,

Allowing samples to be stored alongside others belonging to different people,

Not taking DNA samples from Paul which would prove the blood was his.

Reports by Lecomte, France’s most senior pathologist, and Dr Pepin, who tested Mr Paul’s blood, were central to the initial finding that the deaths were a simple road accident caused by a drink-driver.

Mr Paul was said to be more than three times over the legal drink limit when the Mercedes he was driving crashed into the underpass in Paris.

Doubts over the veracity of the blood tests have led the French courts to examine the role of Lecomte and Pepin.
It now makes it impossible for investigators to say with certainty that Diana and Dodi died in a simple road accident and adds weight to claims of a cover-up.

Lecomte testified on oath that she took just three blood samples from Paul. But a log book shows five samples were taken, suggesting extra samples may have been wrongly attributed to Mr Paul.

Pepin’s findings claimed that Mr Paul had 174 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – more than three times the French legal drink-dive limit.

The current drink-drive limit in the UK is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. In France the limit is 50mg per 100ml of blood.

But a second blood test gives widely differing readings for the amount of alcohol in Mr Paul’s blood.

It is also alleged that blood samples from a suicide victim could have been swapped with Mr Paul’s on the orders of the security services.

This would explain why the readings found in the chauffeur’s blood were so extraordinary. Tests showed such high levels of carbon monoxide that Paul would have been unable to stand, let alone drive.

The new evidence was given to Operation Paget, the £4million British inquiry into Diana’s death led by former Met Police Comm-issioner Lord Stevens. But Lord Stevens declared he was “satisfied” with the original findings. Questions also remain over Mr Paul’s connection with the French intelligence services.

The driver was an informer for the French secret service and police. But Lord Stevens said this was only at a very “low level” and Paul was not paid for his information.

Lord Stevens also denied that MI6 had been in contact with Paul. He said he found that no agent had ever met or communicated with Paul and that MI6 did not have a file on him.

But the question remains: If Mr Paul was only such a “low level” unpaid operative, why did his bank accounts reveal that he had amassed more than £100,000?

Mr Mansfield has warned that Operation Paget throws up a number of such questions that the inquest must answer.

[Carl Jones]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/diana/7446929/Princess-Diana-book-claims-her-driver-was-framed.htm