Sunday 14 04 2008 15.30 It is an good time to pause over the summing up by the Coroner in the Inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi al Fayed Al Fayed and remember my experience over 48 hours and then follow up with the rest of to-day and Monday.
On Friday evening I had stayed up only to write a short note about the film To the Daughter a Devil ops I meant To the Devil a daughter although the film could have been equally titled as first written and then noticed that Joanne Woodward and her husband were performing in Mr and Mrs Brown, the Merchant Ivory production, so I stayed up and then was emotionally affected by the scene in which she becomes imprisoned in her garage on a bitterly cold evening as snow commenced to cover the front of the car. This triggered my own challenging experience and this is turn led me to think of others which counterbalanced. It was in the early hours when I went to bed and sleep.
09.00 Saturday remembered. Despite the late going to bed I was in good heart and body and decided to go out early to find a parking space for the match and to also visit the supermarket at Seaburn for some essentials, bread, milk, some instant coffee for the occasional milky drink and the Daily Mail which included two British War films on one DVD. IO also had decided on buying a sandwich pack lunch being short of bread and uncertain of the time available. However although it looked as everyone had decided to shop at the same time and aisle were difficult to pass without trolleys knocking, I could not resist a once around for bargains, taking up the two for one offers on smoked salmon, prawns and, salami, or the fresh bream where I bought two, some grapes, two freshish pineapples, some figs and some salad.
12.45ish I realised I had forgotten to advise a friend about the Daily Mail offer, and sensibly I should have text found the individual had been unable to find one still on sale and returned to for the extra copy, but given the promise of rain and what happened two week's before I decided to find a good parking spot, which I did and then felt hungry so eat the sandwiches. A half of salmon, a half of ham and a half of chicken and a few of the grapes, unwashed. I wish had thought of making coffee. I used the mobile and decided that given there was two hours before kick off I would go for exercise and another copy of the newspaper and DVD.
13.15 I crossed over the main Sunderland to Newcastle Road to the petrol station by the former Monkwearmouth Railway station now railway museum and tea room They sold the local evening newspaper but not the Dailies. The choice was between walking over the Wear River Bridge into the Town centre to Smiths which I was confident was sold out and then walking to where there were other newsagents but where from previous experience popular give-aways were also usually sold out by lunch time, and walking along the riverside road towards the beach where there was a BP garage news agents and shop. I was not confident of find the paper there but I wanted to check if they also sold hot coffee. I had forgotten that the gas station was at the far end of this long road from which one can visit the National Glass Centre, the University riverside complex and the Church and Monastery site of St Peter's which along with St Paul's at Jarrow is bidding to become a world Heritage location in 2010 as the British nomination. Throughout Sunderland there are now banners attached to lamp posts proclaiming the project.
13.40. The BP garage was out of Daily Mail's and had not hot coffee and the deli sandwich and salad bar is only a weekday operation or was closed by lunch on This day, despite being a match day, I crossover passing the Albion pub and into Roker Avenue, along street of terraced housing and of scattered local shops. I have driven along this road from time to time, but not often and never walked so it was interesting to come across two groups of properties, two stories in height where there were six separate door bells and in one instance six separate security alarms. This sheeted rooming houses with some common facilities, perhaps for students, or other singles and where the bells and security was necessary to prevent unauthorised individuals gaining entry, or one lot of students having to look after the friends or callers of others. This took me back to a similar property at Balham used by activists in the peace movement in the 1960's. It was not a commune but a shared dwelling house so when the likes of me called without having made a prior arrangement as the guest of someone in particular it created problems for the others who might be engaged in other activities. There was a newsagents but again they were sold out of the newspaper. I decided to go back to the car rather than continue along the road which led directly to the stadium and check the sports news on he radio and have a further look at the new paper until 14.15ish as it had started to rain heavily.
14.15 It was as made my way to the ground past an Italian run take away which I have used in the past for its kebab with salad that I noticed the newsagent next door and it had a pile of Daily Mails.. On reach the ground I resisted to take a look at the new 50 meter aquatics centre which is a multi million pound to develop swimming in the region as the first Olympic and World Swimming and diving centre between Leeds and Scotland. There is a celebration opening next week to enable the citizens of Sunderland see the latest sporting addition to their community but which ahs also cast doubt on the future of the Leisure facility in the centre of town, especially as the Ice Skating rink has also closed.
14.30 I enjoyed a cup of coffee noting that for the same cost of £1.50 I could buy a packet of ground coffee from Columbia or Java.
16,50 I will remember this match for three things, The cold and I was reminded of my hesitancy about season ticket renewals, reinforced by a poor game which we should have won, as the two goals they scored were due to our sloppiness, The memory was the almost continuous banter between the Sunderland and Man City fans who it was evidently enjoyed themselves thoroughly regardless of the match. There is a special body between supporters which is unusual and goes back to the day at the old Man City stadium, between Sunderland were but relegated and a vast following went to show their loyalty and continuing support, many in fancy dress. We were relegated and as a mark of respect a large number of city fans had stayed behind and sang and clapped their support and genuine best wishes. Sunderland is one of the few grounds where those supporters who like to sing and shout can buy tickets together in an area adjacent to the visiting fans.
17.20 Newcastle were playing Portsmouth and the match was being shown on Satanta at 17.15, My priority was hot tomato soup and bread and unpacking the groceries. It was 17.30 before I was able to settle. It was un goalless first half and with the warmth in and outside my body I went to sleep for most of the second half, waking with advertise before the after match comments week learnt it had been a 0.0 draw. Next week it is the big one as Sunderland visit St James and which is being shown by Sky at lunch time.
19.45 My sleep inducing inner warmth was in part cause by three pieces of Kentucky fried kitchen, and some chips, first for several weeks. It was time to watch for the first time Britain's Got Talent, As with American Idol and the British equivalent I do not find the talentless wannabees amusing, but embarrassing humiliating, degrading. Fortunately this time there appears to be less and a greater concentration on those with ability, potential and gifted, The most outstanding came at he end, an overweight thirteen year old who looked terrified and admitted that he had been bullied on the council estate where they lived because of his voice. What emerged was perhaps the most moving, boy soprano voice I have ever heard. There was also a contortionist who did the most amazing things with her body who is studying to be a lawyer and young girl with a dog who performed like no other animal ever. There was a humorist impressionist from Hull who spent a lifetime in clubs who was wanting a little more exposure to impress his children and received a standing ovation and four polished classical trained girls with electric instruments who also impressed.
21.00. Two unplanned programmes followed which altered my evening. The first was a one off concert for a charity called Heart and Stroke Endeavour held at on the Wintershall estate near Guildford at a lake with a band created for the event called Band du Lac and where among those performing as leads with the band were Eric Clapton, Brian Taylor, Kate Melua, Andy Fairweather Low, Ringo Star Chris Barber, and the Drifters. Subsequently research revealed that this may have been the last performance of the charity event although it was said to have taken place regularly over the previous two decades. I can find no other about previous events or the charity which is odd and will seek to find more.
23.00 There was then the event which led to losing the writing of that evening. This was the programme about how Hollywood exploited several young actresses because of their on screen sexual potency although the projection was modest by the past and present standards. In cat it can be said that the twentieth century was the era of greatest human hypocrisy given the mass exterminations of peoples, the acquisition of vast personal and corporate wealth amidst horrendous levels of poverty and diseases and with the knowledge, power and finances became available, It was also a time of a new order of slavery was introduced. I then wrote for several hours only to over record work which had been accidentally deleted, I went to bed around 3 am.
Sunday 8 am I decided to approach the day's writing differently form recent weeks and write about Mae West and her sayings and then watch the film of Marie Antoinette which was of sumptuous colourful decadence. I had coffee with marmalade toasts.
12.00 I decided on lunch and put on the oven but forgot to put in the three lamb chops so it was after one before they were enjoyed. Two packets of vegetables followed around 2pm. There was a glass of wine from a new bottle of red.
18.00 I remained tired throughout the afternoon and for the second day in succession went soundly to sleep while watching football missing Manchester United's two goals which won the game, finished Arsenals hopes of the championship and probably secured for Man U.
18.30 I watched on BBC I Dr Who in Pompeii where I have visited twice in 1965 and 2001. It was a clever idea giving the Doctor the choice of saving the planet or being the catalyst for the Volcano explosion and which by the rules of the Time Lord he had no choice but to be consistent with history. It is a nice touch in keeping with the times that two adult of similar and attractive appearances can have a close relationship without sexuality.
20.00 Foyle's War has a Merchant Ivory quality over its beautifully paced two hours recapturing the feel of the home war front without its explicit fear and horror. We understand the predicament of the characters, without them creating further trauma for us. This episode focussed on the psychological impact of the war with one escaped and injured prisoner of war returning home, uncertain of his position after four years and fearful when he discovers a German POW working his farm and having a warm friendship with his wife and son who cannot remember him, a former evacuee runs away from his father to where he found rural solace from the horror of witnessing his mother's death and the reactions of others to the bombing and affects of war. There is the predicament of a pilot with complex post traumatic stress and a Jewish doctor whose believes his family has perished in a concentration camp while he had avoid beings sent to the ghetto having been at a conference in another land when Germany invaded.
22 00 The successor to Spitting image is more hard hitting than I remember and will offend not just those who have been included. I am certain one will be Al Fayed. I am not sure if the joke about Mrs Beckham has also gone its course and can sustain a series. Ok you can now add a moving body to the faces but the jokes have to be good and original. I did laugh though sometimes with guilt.
22.45 The South Bank Show Lord Bragg was on the South and North banks of the Thames for this evening's fix on the literary world of London drawing room and East end migrant. Have all the Jewish folk emigrated to Hampstead and Golders Green?
02.00 I was ready for bed at 2pm but got involved with playing chess having been unable to play for a couple of days after mistaking on a well crated and enjoyable run of some forty seven wins without the hint of hiccup and then the thudding crash of the kind that shakes you up before being able to back behind he wheel.
Monday I awoke with a bright sunshine streaming through the closed curtains at 7 am but knew I was in need of further sleep although it was put the bin out day. I did sleep waking with a dream I remember vividly and wish I did not because it revealed aspects me which I would prefer not to be reminded,. I attended a social function to which I had been invited, but where it was quickly evident everyone hoped I would not accept and the gulf between us was quickly evident. The group in question was related to my former work but I felt it embraced the majority of my life. It is never good to see yourself as see you so early in the day.
10.30. Time to get up properly after some coffee and toast and Reach for the Sky which involves a walk to Smith, calling in for some indigestion tablets and tomatoes on the way back.
10.50 I am still here. I lack get up and go and the weather looked changeable and as it is raining now I would switch to plan B if I had one At I have won two games of Hearts last thing last night and second or third this morning.
16.00 It was not until early afternoon that I made it and then because the weather still looked indifferent I took the vehicle to Asda before making my way to Smiths and then Boots. Now the weather has cleared. It has not been a good food day as a prawn salad did not suffice and I needed more. First there was smoked salmon on toast and then a cheese with herb sandwich which also included a slice of ham with a cup of tea. I have been undertaking project work and will continue working.
17.00 While I worked I watched a Robert Mitcham Raul Walsh psychological Western made in 1947, Pursued in which his family is killed before him because his father had an affair with the woman who brings him up with her son and daughter and. However her husband family do not forget and or forgive and torments the woman's natural son when he grow ups into attempting to kill Mitcham, who kills him in self defence and the same things happens again when a suitor call on the woman's daughter who has always wanted to marry the man brought up as her brother. At first she decides to marry him in order to kill him for the death of her brother and but deep down she still wants him, So it is happy ever after. Alas yes and no because the men who gunned his family come after him and he is about to be strung up when his foster mother and the cause of the feud shoots her husband's brother and this settle the matter.
19.00 the young lad who was bullied with the voice of an angel has appeared on GMTV and on ITV national news. The main item of news on all channels is the accidental death of five young women on a Gap year adventure in Ecuador in which their bus was hit or their but hit a lorry travelling in the opposite direction
#
Hearing transcripts
2 April 2008 - Morning session
Wednesday, 2nd April 2008(10.00 am) SUMMING-UP (continued) (Jury present) LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Good morning, members of the
jury. A few points from yesterday and the day before just to clear up. Lopes Borges went on to the embankment road at 40 to 50 kph which is 25 to 30 mph. Burrell joined the Royal service in 1986 not, as I said, 1996. Mohamed Al Fayed was not the only person to whom Diana mentioned her fears in the summer of 1997. Melissa Henning said Dodi told her that Diana had expressed fears to him of an accident when the boys were not with her. Malibu: I have not referred to all of the evidence relating to this property and Dodi and Diana's interest in going there. Evidence of interest in this property
is said to be indicative of the permanence of Dodi and Diana's relationship and I remind you of that. Landmines: I passed quickly over the dossier that Diana had prepared. Simone Simmons told us that Diana was preparing a report that she was going to call "Profiting out of misery", and this, she said, was going to name names and show that the British Government and public figures were profiting from the proliferation of landmines in places like Angola and Bosnia. Top of the list of culprits would be the SIS. Incidentally, I think I also told you that Nicholas Soames went on Panorama when he criticised Diana and, in fact, it was not Panorama, it was Newsnight. The final point that I mention is this: on Monday, I referred to the evidence of Simone Simmons that the Duchess of York had received nasty letters from Prince Philip. I mentioned that we heard undisputed evidence from the Duchess of York in which she denied receiving any such letters. All that is correct. However, I mistakenly said that Michael Cole had also said that the Duchess had received such letters. In fact, Cole made different points about the Duchess of York. He said on radio and in a statement to the police that the Duchess of York had discussed with Diana fears that they would be killed. He also said that after the death of Diana, the Duchess wrote to the Queen to ask for forgiveness. The Duchess said she had no recollection of discussing any fears with Diana and denied that she had written a letter to the Queen of the type described by Cole. Again, that evidence was read to you because it was not disputed by any of the interested persons in these inquests. Cole stuck to his story when questioned, saying that sources had told him that the Duchess had written such a letter to the Queen. It is for you to decide what you accept. Well, members of the jury, the next heading which I have to deal with is the paparazzi.
I turn to the evidence from the paparazzi themselves. In your jury bundle you have the chart at tab 29 and the timeline of the paparazzi movements. As I have said, only one of them, Stephane Darmon, gave live evidence to you. The others refused to do so and the statements that they had made at various times were introduced before you by other witnesses. You will remember Mr Croxford indicated that the issues that he was most anxious to explore were their conduct on the final journey and whether there were more photographs taken by them than we have seen. You may think that the answer to the second question is that there may well have been. Darmon was employed by the Gamma agency and was riding his Honda motorbike for Rat. He told you that they went to Le Bourget earlier in the day. In the journey from the airport they lost sight of the Mercedes. They went to the Ritz and then followed the couple to Rue Arsene Houssaye. Rat had a fight with a bodyguard. Then they followed the couple back to the r Ritz. He saw Henri Paul outside the hotel. He seemed very joyful. When he saw him, his eyes and the way he acted reminded Darmon of Darmon's father, who was an alcoholic. It was pointed out to him, however, that he had not mentioned this in any of the statements that he had made to the French police and magistrate. Darmon saw the decoy journey round the square. Later Rat told him that the couple had left from the back of the Ritz. Rat said that he had been told by Odekerken. That is consistent with the mobile phone data that you have heard about. Darmon and Rat drove off from the front of the Ritz There were three to four motorcycles and maybe two to three scooters and several cars. As they approached the Crillon Hotel in the Place de la Concorde, Rat was talking on his mobile phone to a photographer who was close to the Mercedes. At the lights at the junction with the Champs-Elysees, the Mercedes waited for somespace in front and then took off like a plane. Darmon followed the Mercedes. He overtook all the cars, including Odekerken's, which had been at the lights. He did not agree with Bonnin that flash photographs were being taken of the passengers in the Mercedes while they were stationary at the lights. He drove on to the expressway. He was doing 80 to 100
kph, that is 50 to 60 miles per hour. He claimed that the Mercedes disappeared from view, but said that there was no one between him and the Mercedes. No one else was close to them. Members of the jury, his bike has a potential top speed of 174 kilometres per hour. That is 109 miles per hour, but he was, he said, a professional driver who could not afford to take risks. He slowed down. He was joined by a group of photographers who he saw in his mirror and some passers-by. He told the police that he was going at 60 kph,37 mph. He was at the top of the slope to the underpass, "... the whole group was there, four or five cars mingling with the traffic, about three motorbikes and two scooters". He claimed he had never said this and that there must have been a misunderstanding, although he had signed the document recording this. He said that these people had got there later. When he got into the tunnel, the horn of the Mercedes was sounding and there was a lot of smoke. He parked his bike 10 to 15 metres away. He and Rat went towards the car to rescue the occupants. Rat opened the door and then the others arrived. The photographs that were taken obviously demonstrate that this cannot be right He said at least ten photographers were there.Certainly more than those who were there when the police arrived. Rat gave him the film he had taken and Darmon gave it to the police. Two people on a Yamaha motorbike left after the photographs were taken. Benhamou and others left the tunnel with the film. So much for Darmon Romuald Rat: his statements were introduced by Mr Carpenter. In his first statement of 31st August, he dealt with events at Le Bourget and explained that they lost the Mercedes on the way back when the driver accelerated suddenly. He said that he had had a dispute with a French security officer at Rue Arsene Houssaye. Back at the Ritz, Henri Paul was keeping them informed of what was going on. He described the dummy run. He saw the photographers at the front of the Ritz leaving and realised the couple had left by the rear exit. At Concorde, he saw the Mercedes. There were four or five cars behind it at the lights, a motorbike and a scooter. When the lights changed, the Mercedes sped off to the embankment. He said none of them caught up with the Mercedes because of the speed of the car. He said "We tried to catch up with them. I was among the leading pursuers". They carried on, slowing down, and then saw the Mercedes in the tunnel. He claimed that he got onlookers away from the car and then went back to the car and opened the door. That is plainly untrue when you look at the photographs that were taken. Members of the jury, you may want to consider whether the conduct of any individual in the tunnel after the crash demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the lives of others in pursuit of a photograph, and, if so, whether that helps you in determining what was the nature of the pursuit before the crash. Rat claimed that he felt for Diana's pulse and said that a doctor would be arriving. A doctor's car arrived and then he saw someone with an oxygen mask. He claimed that it was only then that he began to take photographs. You know that that is not true. He said that he did not understand why the Mercedes suddenly drove so quickly; "... a normal chauffeur knows that it is not the way that you should shake someone off. He took too many risks". If that assessment of his is accurate, you will want to consider whether it must also apply to any chasing group. His camera and film were taken by the police. In his second statement, he said that no one had taken any photographs whilst the Mercedes was in motion. At Concorde, he had been putting his crash helmet back .. using his mobile phone. He saw journalists run away from the scene of the crash, so it was possible that some films were taken away. He called Odekerken after he lost sight of the Mercedes on the expressway. That call, members of the jury, is timed at 17 minutes past midnight. In a statement on 30th September 1997, he said that he spoke to Henri Paul several times outside the Ritz. They spoke about cameras. He was surprised that Henri Paul spoke to them. At one point Rat was with Langevin and one of them said Henri Paul must have been drinking. He was really strange. No mention of that was made in the first statement, taken before publicity was given to the suggestion that Henri Paul was over the limit. He said that none of the photographers had vehicles which could have kept up with the Mercedes Mr Read confirmed that that was not the case. Serge Benhamou made his first statement on 4thSeptember. He was at the Ritz with his Honda scooter. Veres joined him on a Hexagon scooter after Benhamou telephoned him. He went to Rue Arsene Houssaye and then back to the Ritz. He saw Henri Paul there. Henri Paul was cheerful and laughing. He had never behaved like that before and usually ignored them. He said to some people that he must have been drinking. He said "All his reactions led me to believe that". The couple left in the Mercedes and sped off. He caught up in the Rue de Rivoli. The Mercedes jumped red light at Concorde. Benhamou was very close at that stage, like everyone that was following. They all jumped the light. Then he saw the rear lights of the vehicles following the Mercedes. He said, "I was able to follow the convoy from a distance. As they were starting to drive quickly, I could not keep up with themon my scooter". The driver of the Mercedes had wanted to shake them off, but he had not heard him say that He saw that Henri Paul was at the wheel at Concorde. "I saw the pack turn left in front of Crillon. Pursuing 16 photographers also set off very quickly". He drove at 17 60 kph, that is 37 miles per hour, on the expressway He lost "the convoy". He went to the Place de l'Alma and later noticed cars stacking up. He went on foot into the underpass and saw the crashed car. He took photographs. He called Veres at 25 minutes past midnight to ask him to come. Benhamou left on his
scooter. He left his film with M Dufour who developed it. Christian Martinez made his first statement on 31st August. Serge Arnal told him that Diana was in Paris. He met Arnal at the Ritz. Martinez was on foot Arnal had his black Fiat Uno. They went to Rue Arsene Houssaye and then followed them to the Ritz. They waited at the front. When the couple left, they left as well and saw them at Concorde. He saw a 4x4 and a black Peugeot 205 behind the Mercedes. The Mercedes pulled away very quickly at the lights and left everyone standing. 10 Martinez and Arnal followed at a distance, like the two cars ahead of them. Darmon and Rat must have been in front, but he could not see them. When they got to the underpass, they saw the crashed car. They parked outside the tunnel and came back. The first on the scene were Rat, Arnal and Martinez. He took photographs and his film was taken by the police. He said he thought that "Henri Paul was going much too fast maybe he swerved to avoid a vehicle that was travelling very slowly in front of him. Then he lost control of the car". If you think that is what happened, you may like to ask how Martinez could have known that. Arnal was going flat out, he estimated at 100 to
110 kph, 60 to 70 miles per hour. Some photographers left the tunnel. They were young men, four or five of them. He had tried to telephone the emergency services Some of his photographs were clearly taken before the emergency services arrived. In his second statement, on 1st September, he said that he had in fact left his telephone in his car. He had not tried to telephone the emergency services. On the expressway he had not seen any vehicles apart from the Mercedes they were following. In a further statement, on 1st September, he said that a colleague, Guizard, telephoned them to say that the couple were leaving by the rear exit. In a statement made on 10th October 1997, he said he saw the Mercedes at traffic lights by the Crillon in Concorde. Around it was Guizard in his light 205, Ker in his 4x4, Benhamou on his scooter and Chassery in his black 205. He thought the Mercedes was going to Rue Arsene Houssaye. He said "When you have 25 photographers with flash-guns behind you, you do not decide to do something unusual or exceptional". Mr Carpenter agreed that it was a strong inference from the photographs that he must have been in a car that was very close to the Mercedes at the time of the crash and that there was evidence that he had managed to get film out of the tunnel. So much for Martinez. Serge Arnal gave his first statement on 31st August. He explained how he met up with Martinez, went to Rue Arsene Houssaye and then back to the Ritz. They saw the dummy run. Later he thought that the couple might have left by the rear exit. They left to try and pick them up in Concorde. He saw Odekerken's 4x4, a scooter and a motorbike with two people on it, Rat and Darmon. He followed them at a distance. As they turned onto the expressway he saw the Mercedes. It accelerated as soon as it turned right. It sped into the first tunnel. Arnal lost sight of it. His colleagues were still in front. He slowed down. He saw the crashed Mercedes in the next tunnel. He drove past it and stopped. by the time he got out, people were around the car. He telephoned the emergency services on 112. In fact, he telephoned directory inquiries, 12, at 23 minutes past midnight. Ten minutes or so after he arrived, he got his camera out. That cannot be true. In his first eight photographs, no other people can be seen. They were obviously taken very soon after the crash had happened. On 1st September, he said that several of his colleagues got away before the police came and some of them had taken photographs. In a later statement, he said that he had called his editor. The call is timed at 27 minutes past midnight. Alain Guizard was the editor of the Angeli agency He gave his first statement on 3rd September. He learned that Diana would be coming to Paris from Sardinia. He went to the airport in his grey/blue Peugeot 205. He went to the Ritz and saw his photographers there. He went off for dinner. He came back to the Ritz, where he saw Martinez. They split up. Later Martinez telephoned him and said that the couple would leave by the rear exit. Guizard pulled forward in his car in Rue Cambon so he could help his photographers with the direction of the car. He followed the car to Concorde where he let Arnal pull in front of him. There were some flashes at this point. This is confirmed by the witness, Bonnin, whose evidence was read to you ' You may think that photographs were being taken. If so, you have not seen them
The Mercedes set off very quickly from the lights, leaving two motorcycles and two cars in its wake Benhamou was on his scooter. Guizard decided to return home, but took the same route as the other vehicles. He drove at 60 to 80 kph; 37 to 50 mph. He saw the crashed Mercedes. He saw Martinez and Arnal. He was not given any film. He did not take any photographs. He went away to Dani Angeli's house and then returned to the scene. He said that when he had been at the back of the Ritz, Benhamou said that Henri Paul had been drinking. He had not noticed anything about Henri Paul himself. The only reason Benhamou gave was that Henri Paul was in a different mood from usual. The telephone records show that he had telephoned Martinez at 18 minutes past midnight and the Alpha agency in England at 33 minutes past midnight. David Odekerken gave his first statement on 4th September. He said that he was in partnership with Chassery and a third man who was on holiday in Corsica. That is Salmon. Laurent Sola called Chassery, who called Odekerken, to say that the couple were coming to Le Bourget. Odekerken and Chassery went there, Odekerken in his grey/beige Pajero 4x4, Chassery in his black Peugeot 205. Then they went to the Ritz, then to Rue Arsene Houssaye, then back to the Ritz. Henri Paul spoke to the photographers outside the Ritz. Chassery asked Odekerken to join him at the back of the hotel. Odekerken drove there. He was about to park when he noticed that what he called "the procession" had set off. He said he meant the Mercedes and the motorcycles and the cars of the journalists following. Chassery went to get into is vehicle. The convoy set off. They lost the convoy and decided to stop work. as they went to Concorde, he saw some camera flashes
after the Champs-Elysees. He saw the procession travelling quickly. Chassery went towards the Champs-Elysees. Odekerken decided to go home along the expressway. In the tunnel, he saw the crashed Mercedes. Photographers were taking pictures. He parked outside the tunnel. He telephoned Chassery. Odekerken went into the tunnel and took some pictures. Chassery arrived. Odekerken and Chassery then left. Odekerken went home and then met Sola with Chassery. They gave their film to Sola. They developed it. When they learned that Diana had died, the photographs were not to be used. In an interview on 2nd October 1997, he said that when the Mercedes was at the lights, he saw Arnal's car following. He was on the phone to Rat at the time, who wanted to know where the "cortege" was. There were calls at 19, 20 and 21 minutes past midnight. They had been exchanging information all day. There was a scooter at the lights and Guizard's 205. There were other cars which he could not identify. Rat's bike overtook him after the Mercedes pulled away very fast from the lights. Fabrice Chassery made his first statement on 4th September. Sola called him and he went to the airport where he met Odekerken. On the way back, the Range Rover effected a sudden, even dangerous, he said, manoeuvre, going from the extreme left-hand lane to take an exit. They followed that vehicle, which led them away from the Mercedes, then to the Ritz and Rue Arsene Houssaye, back to the Ritz. Henri Paul spoke to the photographers outside the Ritz. Chassery thought that the couple would leave from the back. He went there and then telephoned Odekerken. The couple left in the Mercedes. Chassery and Odekerken decided to end there. They separated Odekerken telephoned him to say that the Mercedes had crashed. Chassery drove to the tunnel. Chassery took photographs. The police arrived. Chassery and Odekerken left. Chassery called Sola. Sola told him to bring the photographs. Chassery called Odekerken and they both went to Sola. Then all three went to Angeli to develop the photographs. In a statement on 5th September, he said that in the evening at the Ritz, Henri Paul seemed happy, had a laugh and spoke to them. Normally he was serious, not really friendly and did not speak to the photographers. Pierre Suu was on a maroon BMW motorbike driven by Jerko Tomic. He made his first statement on 31st August. He and Tomic had followed the Mercedes from Rue Arsene Houssaye to the Ritz. They missed the departure of the Mercedes from Rue Cambon and followed the wrong vehicles to Rue Arsene Houssaye again. There they learned about the accident and went to the tunnel. A security cordon was in place. Later he followed the ambulance to the hospital. He made a statement to Metropolitan Police officers in 2006. He said he knew James Andanson. Andanson was not in Paris that night. He was not the kind of person to go unnoticed. He said some film had been taken out of the tunnel. One film belonged to Chassery. Another, taken by Martinez, was given to Guizard, who threw it in the river. Pierre Hounsfield was driving a black Volkswagen Golf. He made his first statement on 18th September 1997. He worked for the Sipa Agency, in a pool with Suu and sometimes Arsov. He joined Suu and Arsov at Arsene Houssaye. They then followed the couple to the Ritz. Henri Paul spoke to them. Benhamou said, "It is strange, this man never speaks to us and never smiles at us. Something must be happening". By this, he meant that the couple would leave by the rear exit. One toeless, Hounsfield, Suu and Arsov missed them. It was agreed Suu would follow the Mercedes and the Range Rover which left from the front. Hounsfield met Suu at Arsene Houssaye. They learned of the accident and went to the tunnel. In June 2006, Hounsfield spoke to Metropolitan Police officers. He said he had seen a radar camera near the Alma Tunnel on the night. He said it was by the entrance to the underpass, by the trees separating the slip road from the expressway. It was a tripod-type and there was a marked police car by it with two uniformed officers. No one else ever says they saw it and we heard undisputed evidence in the form of a report from Gigou that there was no speed camera at work on that route that night. You will recollect that his evidence also dealt with the suggestion that the French authorities had disabled CCTV cameras to ensure that the journey was not filmed. Hounsfield was asked which direction he was coming from and then realised that his route meant he would not have passed the camera. He said he wondered if his mind was playing tricks. Nikola Arsov was the rider of a white BMW motorcycle. His first statement was made on 31st August. He went to the Ritz. He was there when the couple returned from Rue Arsene Houssaye. Later he followed the Range Rover from the front of the hotel. He stopped after a time and was making his way back to the agency when he saw Darmon by the Alma Tunnel. He stopped. He went and took some photographs. They did not come out because he said his flash was not plugged in. The police were already there. Stephane Cardinale was the driver of a white Citroen AX. He made a statement on 18th September 1997. He went to the Ritz Hotel. He was joined by his colleague, Langevin. He missed the departure from the rear of the hotel; he followed the decoy vehicles. He heard the news at Rue Arsene Houssaye, went to the tunnel, but a security cordon was in place. Jack Langevin was the driver of a grey Volkswagen Golf. His first statement was made on 31st August. He got to the Ritz at about 11 pm. He took the photographs you have seen at the back of the Ritz. The Mercedes left. He went to his car but did not manage to follow the Mercedes. A car that might have been a Peugeot 205 seemed to be following it. He gave up. On his way to a friend's house, he saw people blocking the entrance to the tunnel. He went to look. The emergency services were there. He took a few pictures. He made a statement on 1st September. He said that Henri Paul had been merry and showing off. Some photographers said that he was not in his normal state and that he had been drinking. He had not mentioned this on 31st August.
Laslo Veres was on a Piaggio scooter. His first statement was on 31st August. He had been to Rue Arsene Houssaye and followed the couple back to the Ritz. He heard that the couple had left from the back exit. He stayed in the Place Vendome until after the crash had happened. He can be seen on CCTV film in the square after the crash. As a result of a telephone call, he went to the tunnel. The police let him through and he took some pictures.He made a statement on 22nd October 1997. He said that Henri Paul had spoken to them outside the Ritz. After three sentences, Veres claimed, he realised that Henri Paul was saying incoherent things. Henri Paul spoke to Rat for two to three minutes. He had not said that before. You will remember that Rat said he had spoken to Henri Paul about cameras and Henri Paul had noted references in his notebook. So much then for the paparazzi. I now turn to the reconstruction evidence and, in this regard, you will, I think, find it helpful to have available the plan in your bundle at page 10, which perhaps can be put up on the screen, and also to have available the photographs in your bundle at page 11, but I think it is the plan that we want to look at the moment. Members of the jury, you heard from three experts: Messrs Read, Jennings and Searle. There was a considerable message of agreement between them. None of them came on the scene until many years after the event, so they were at some disadvantage Further, the initial investigation had taken place on foreign soil, under somewhat different procedures from ours. questions arise such as whether everything relevant was collected and examined by the French and whether everything that might have been relevant was recorded. Tony Read has spent 28 years in the traffic division of the Metropolitan Police. He has completed courses on HGV, PSV and motorcycles. He has a City and Guilds in Road Accident Investigation and is a member of the Institute of Road Traffic Investigators. He first became involved in this case in the spring of 2004. There were several areas of agreement between the experts. Members of the jury, it is important to keep these in the forefront of your minds as they are important reference points when you come to consider the eye witness evidence on the issues that are in dispute. The eight areas of agreement are:
(1) the collision between the Mercedes and the white Fiat Uno occurred in the vicinity of the entrance to the tunnel. However, it is not agreed precisely where the impact took place, what was the nature of the impact and what the course was of the two vehicles before impact. Those three matters were the principal are as of disagreement. Continuing with the agreed matters, they are:(2) Red plastic debris came from the rear light cover on the left-hand side of the Uno. The light cover could be dated as having been manufactured between May 1983 and September1989. (3) Clear plastic debris came from the front indicator cover of the Mercedes. (4) White paint on the right front wing and front area of the front right door of the Mercedes match that of a white Fiat Uno of the period May 1983 to September 1989. (5) A smear of black plastic on the Mercedes was consistent with having come from the rear bumper on a Fiat made at the same time. (6) No one was wearing a seat-belt and wearing one would have increased the prospect of survival. Searle went rather further than this in evidence, saying they would have survived. (7) The speed of the Mercedes was 65 miles per hour at impact, plus or minus 5 mph. The speed limit for the road was 31 miles per hour in British terms.
The speed of the Mercedes, when it collided with the Fiat, was also between 60 mph and 70 mph. (8) There were no defects in the Mercedes that contributed to the collision. Read told us it would be almost impossible to stage the collision in a pre-arranged manner because the effect on the slower lighter vehicle, ie the Fiat, would be likely to be much greater than on the larger heavier vehicle, ie the Mercedes. This was at a time, of course, when attention was concentrated on the Fiat as being part of a staged accident plan. You may think things have moved on. Also, it would be even more
difficult to stage the collision had there been a safety vehicle following the Mercedes, eg the Range Rover. Also, a nine-and-a-half-year-old Fiat would be a very poor choice of vehicle to knock the Mercedes off its path. When questioned about possibilities, Read did not disagree that a blocking vehicle could have been involved. However, as you know, there is no forensic scientific evidence to support such a possibility. The reason the collision was to serious was because the Mercedes collided at such a high speed with one of the pillars of the underpass, causing a very high-energy impact. Members of the jury, you may think it was a complete matter of chance whether the Mercedes hit the wall or one of the pillars. At this stage, it may help you to turn to the plan at tab 10 of your bundle. You will see there the marks. Now, as to the marks on the road, the single mark was made by a revolving tyre slipping sideways. I think you are familiar now with where the single mark is on the picture. The double marks were made by the rear wheels. These three marks were all left by the Mercedes.
The single tyre mark indicates a movement to the left and then to the right. There is then a movement to the left, to avoid hitting the right-hand wall. The increasing severity of the marks is typical, said
Mr Read, of a driver over-correcting and being unable to control his vehicle. The Mercedes' speed at the entry to the underpass was unlikely to have been significantly in excess of the speed at impact, namely 60 to 70 mph. It is impossible to say whether the Fiat came from the slip road or was on the main carriage way, but if it was on the main carriageway, it would have been visible to the driver of the Mercedes for some time. There was some doubt about whether a vehicle coming on to the main carriageway from the sliproad had the right of way. The position appears to be that under French law it probably did. You may like to bear in mind your experience of standing by that sliproad during the view of the scene last October. Debris would not land on the road at the point of impact but would be carried forward. You know that "throw tests" were carried out and you have the results in your bundle to look at. It was also agreed that the overlap of the vehicles at impact was approximately 17 centimetres. The side of the vehicles came together with a glancing blow. The Fiat was going at a maximum of 40 mph. It did not suffer any second impact, and if it had been going any faster, it would have run into the spinning Mercedes. It could, of course, have been travelling at less than 40 mph.
Mr Read said it generally takes a driver 1 to 1 and a half seconds to perceive and react to a hazard. It will be more if the driver is impaired. But he agreed that there is no ready reckoner for reaction time. If the Mercedes was in the right-hand lane,
the driver would have had to steer to the left when already steering to the left to negotiate the bend. If it was in the left-hand lane, which you may think is suggested by the witnesses, it may have drifted across as a result of speed in negotiating the bend or the driver may have intended to take a straight line into the bend and encroached on the right-hand lane or the Fiat Uno may simply have drifted into the path of the Mercedes. Now the experts were not agreed about the precise point of impact and one of the factors relevant to this was whether the French had identified and picked up all the debris. The French were adamant that they had picked up everything that was relevant, but looking at the photographs, it was suggested that they had not. If you look at page 78, you will see an arrow in the bottom of the photograph pointing to "unmarked lens debris" Absent extra debris, Read put the impact with the Fiat 1.5 metres before the start of the tunnel. With the possible extra debris, he put it at 10 metres before the start of the tunnel. Read thought the impact took place with the Mercedes a bit over into the right-hand carriageway and that the left side of the Fiat was close to the centre line. Jennings agreed with that, but Searle put the impact at the start of the single tyre mark and, therefore, the Mercedes must have been entirely in the left-hand lane. When Read was cross-examined, a video taken in February 1998 was shown and he agreed that there would physically have been no difficulty in driving through the tunnel at 62 miles per hour, but he did not agree that it was commonplace for drivers to go through it at 60 or 70. He agreed that if there had been a blocking vehicle in the left-hand lane and a slow-moving vehicle in the right-hand lane, the driver would really have had
a problem. He agreed that the Mercedes could have travelledthrough the Alexandre III tunnel at 60, 70 or even 80 mph and still have been able to brake, slow down or come off at the sliproad, provided that there was no obstruction such as a motorcycle.
He said the single tyre mark was consistent with previous loss of control and did not signify the point at which loss of control began. He thought this was a classic example of over-reaction to a hazard or a perceived hazard. There was, in his opinion, no evidence to put the Fiat over the centre dividing line at the point of collision. Nor was there evidence of impact between any vehicles other than the one impact between the Mercedes and the Fiat. He said that the issues between him and Searle were very much matters of degree. Jennings agreed that a bright or flashing light could cause a distraction, depending upon (a) the light and (b) where it flashed. A matter you may think of common sense. Jennings agreed with Read about the point of impact with the Fiat: 10 metres before the tunnel if the debris the French did not pick up was attributable to the collision; at the start of the tunnel or a couple of metres before it if not. Either way, the Mercedes' right-hand side would be crossing the centre line or very close to it. Searle had built up an accident investigation team over 25 years. He has investigated over 3,000 collisions. He said that it involved a series of speculations to say the collision took place 10 metres back from the tunnel entrance. In his opinion the impact occurred just before the single tyre mark. He said there were three possible explanations why the Fiat was over the centre line, if it was. They were (1) meandering, (2) overtaking and(3)that it moved deliberately to block the Mercedes. In his view, the road into the tunnel could be safely travelled at 65 miles per hour or even faster.
He agreed that if the unmarked debris that the French had not picked up did come from the collision, it would put the point of impact back but not, in his view, as far as Read had suggested.
He agreed rather reluctantly that alcohol impairs nearly all driving abilities, but concluded with the rather surprising statement that if the driver was over twice the drink-drive limit, he, Searle, was not
persuaded that this had any relevance and you, the jury, should proceed accordingly. This issue was also dealt with by the toxicology experts The main issues on the expert evidence relate to, first, where the impact between the two vehicles occurred. There is a difference between 10 metres before the entrance to the tunnel and the start of the tyre mark 1 metre inside the tunnel, so a maximum of just 11 metres. The Mercedes would have covered that distance in less than half a second. Secondly, whether the Mercedes was in the left-hand lane or at or slightly over the centre line. You may think these points depend upon variables that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine, like whether the French identified all the debris. At the end of the day disputed expert evidence may only take you so far. Of more help, when you come to consider the eye witness evidence, are the various matters on which the experts were agreed. Read said that in common with most road traffic accidents, this collision did not appear to have a single cause. The absence of one or more possible causes might have altered the outcome. He mentioned: driver impairment; distraction by the paparazzi; excessive speed; the presence of another vehicle and the need to take avoiding action; unfamiliarity with the vehicle; challenging road layouts -- meaning a left-hand bend and a dip in the road -- and the stress or the euphoria of the situation. To this is perhaps to be added: distraction of the driver by a flash of light. Read and Searle's evidence may help you when you come to consider the narrative verdict. Let me summarise the arguments about a staged accident. I explained to you at the start of my summing-up why I had decided that there was insufficient evidence for you to be sure that this was unlawful
killing by staged accident. I also explained to you that if you took the view that there is any satisfactory evidence of it at all, you must take it into account as part of the whole of the evidence in deciding whether verdicts 1 to 4, that are available to you, are established to the necessary standard. I also explained that if the evidence as
a whole does not support any of the first four verdicts which I identified, then you are entitled to return an open verdict.
I have commented upon the evidence which was said to point towards a staged crash as I have gone along and you will appreciate the need to examine it very carefully to see whether or not, .. examination, it in fact amounts to anything at all. You are, of course, the judge of the facts and it is only fair that
I remind you, without comment, of some, not all, of the features of how staged accident is put. It includes the following: Diana had expressed fears for her safety before the crash. See, for example, the Mishcon and Burrell notes. She had mentioned the possibly of a car accident in both notes Could strained relations with some members of the Royal Family or her involvement with the anti-landmine campaign or her involvement with Dodi and the Al Fayed family have prompted some person or persons to decide to kill, injure or scare her in some way? Were her telephone conversations monitored by some person or persons and, if so, were they prepared to do her harm and did they learn of her plans in this way? Are there features of the crash itself which point towards a staged accident, in other words, evidence of a blocking vehicle in front of the Mercedes and a motorbike and a bright light behind, used to disorientate the driver? Was a flashing light of this kind a technique used by MI6 -- see the evidence of Tomlinson -- and could rogue MI6 officers have decided to use it here? Was Henri Paul used by the plotters and duped into playing his part, and if so, was this possible because of some connection he had with the intelligence services? Does Tomlinson support that and is that the explanation for money in his physical possession on the night and in bank accounts? Does such a connection provide the explanation for those periods of time on the night of the crash when we don't know where he was? Are unsatisfactory features of the toxicological evidence explained by interference with Henri Paul's samples, which was done so as to make it look as if alcohol was really behind the crash, when that was not in fact the case?
I would now like just to summarise the evidence of gross negligence as that may be of some assistance. Let's take first Henri Paul. The complaint is essentially that he drove excessively fast when knowing that he had drunk enough alcohol to affect his ability to drive safely and that he was racing to get away fromt he paparazzi. Lucard said Henri Paul challenged the paparazzi at
the rear of the Ritz that they would not catch him and then set off at great speed. Lopes Borges said the Mercedes went off very fast
from the Champs-Elysees lights with other vehicles inpursuit.Bonnin said the passenger on the scooter was taking repeated flash photographs when they were stationary at the lights and the Mercedes sped off as soon as it could after being held up.
Darmon described it as "taking off like a plane". It overtook Bonnin, going "very, very fast". At the Alexandre III tunnel, Hackett saw a vehicle behind going at least 70 mph. When it overtook him,
it was going left to right and swerving. It was being hindered by a number of motorbikes. Mr Le Ny thought the driver of the Mercedes was "crazy". It was going very fast. He was surprised and shocked at its speed, but made no other criticism of the way in which it was being driven. Mrs Le Ny described the speed as "very fast" and Mr Catheline at just over 60 mph; Ronssin, 75 to 80 mph; Gary Dean described the speed as "inordinate", 70 to 80 mph. It was being driven too fast and in a very dangerous manner. Remy put it at 87 to 94, but was he describing the Mercedes? When the car overtook him, it made a noise like the roar of an aircraft at take-off.
Partouche described the speed as very fast with the engine revving and a motorcycle tailgating. Gooroovadoo's estimate of speed corresponded to the back calculation of the reconstruction experts. He said he hardly had time to say to himself that the driver was mad to drive that fast. You must first decide which of this evidence you accept and then you must ask whether you are sure
Henri Paul's driving was so bad as to cross the very high threshold that I have described. An argument in his favour is that while he drove fast, the evidence does not suggest that he was driving inordinately faster than others who use that road and there is little complaint about the manner of his driving, other than excessive speed. Turning to gross negligence on the part of the following vehicles: essentially, the argument is that the paparazzi were racing the Mercedes, having taken up Henri Paul's challenge that they would not catch him, that they did so in such a manner as to create the risk of a fatal crash and that individual drivers drove or rode very close to the Mercedes, thereby limiting its freedom of movement and restricting Henri Paul's options at the critical time. Was there conduct not only negligent but also so grossly negligent as to cross the very high threshold I have described? You will need first to decide which vehicles were involved in the chase and the manner of their driving in the course of it. There is evidence that the paparazzi continually accelerated to follow the Mercedes when it must have been plain Henri Paul intended to outrun them and when he had warned them they would not catch him. There is evidence of a number of paparazzi vehicles following the Mercedes to the Place de la Concorde, that a number was still behind it at the Alexandre III tunnel and on the approach to the Alma Tunnel. This was a challenging urban road environment at night, with the sliproad from the right, the bend to theleft and
the incline into the tunnel. Hackett referred to two or three motorcycles riding very close in the Alexandre III tunnel. He was scared when he saw them. Partouche recalled a compact group of vehicles, including motorcycles just behind the Mercedes, and Gooroovadoo remembered one motorcycle following very closely.
There is also evidence from Darmon that after the crash some of the paparazzi were more intent on taking the best picture than helping the injured, evidence which might throw some light on their state of mind when driving to the tunnel. Again, members of the jury, you must first decide what evidence you accept as to what the following drivers were actually doing and then you must decide
whether it amounted to gross negligence to the high level I have described and was a cause of the collision and the death of Dodi and Diana. These are two significant hurdles. Let me deal with them one by one. First, you will need to be sure about what was actually going on at the critical time. I have summarised the main features of the eye witness evidence, together with that of the paparazzi. I have mentioned that rarely in connection with any fast- moving event does one find an absolutely consistent account from different witnesses. It may be possible for you to disentangle from all the evidence a sequence of events and the involvement of identifiable following vehicles, such that you can be sure of where precisely any vehicle was and the part it played, if any, in causing the crash. But where there is such disagreement about the numbers of vehicles close to the Mercedes, whether they were cars or motorbikes, the numbers of people on them or in them and the parts they played, you may find that difficult. It is striking that even witnesses who had essentially the same line of view give different accounts. Obvious examples are Partouche and Gooroovadoo and the Cathelines and the ....(/)
On Friday evening I had stayed up only to write a short note about the film To the Daughter a Devil ops I meant To the Devil a daughter although the film could have been equally titled as first written and then noticed that Joanne Woodward and her husband were performing in Mr and Mrs Brown, the Merchant Ivory production, so I stayed up and then was emotionally affected by the scene in which she becomes imprisoned in her garage on a bitterly cold evening as snow commenced to cover the front of the car. This triggered my own challenging experience and this is turn led me to think of others which counterbalanced. It was in the early hours when I went to bed and sleep.
09.00 Saturday remembered. Despite the late going to bed I was in good heart and body and decided to go out early to find a parking space for the match and to also visit the supermarket at Seaburn for some essentials, bread, milk, some instant coffee for the occasional milky drink and the Daily Mail which included two British War films on one DVD. IO also had decided on buying a sandwich pack lunch being short of bread and uncertain of the time available. However although it looked as everyone had decided to shop at the same time and aisle were difficult to pass without trolleys knocking, I could not resist a once around for bargains, taking up the two for one offers on smoked salmon, prawns and, salami, or the fresh bream where I bought two, some grapes, two freshish pineapples, some figs and some salad.
12.45ish I realised I had forgotten to advise a friend about the Daily Mail offer, and sensibly I should have text found the individual had been unable to find one still on sale and returned to for the extra copy, but given the promise of rain and what happened two week's before I decided to find a good parking spot, which I did and then felt hungry so eat the sandwiches. A half of salmon, a half of ham and a half of chicken and a few of the grapes, unwashed. I wish had thought of making coffee. I used the mobile and decided that given there was two hours before kick off I would go for exercise and another copy of the newspaper and DVD.
13.15 I crossed over the main Sunderland to Newcastle Road to the petrol station by the former Monkwearmouth Railway station now railway museum and tea room They sold the local evening newspaper but not the Dailies. The choice was between walking over the Wear River Bridge into the Town centre to Smiths which I was confident was sold out and then walking to where there were other newsagents but where from previous experience popular give-aways were also usually sold out by lunch time, and walking along the riverside road towards the beach where there was a BP garage news agents and shop. I was not confident of find the paper there but I wanted to check if they also sold hot coffee. I had forgotten that the gas station was at the far end of this long road from which one can visit the National Glass Centre, the University riverside complex and the Church and Monastery site of St Peter's which along with St Paul's at Jarrow is bidding to become a world Heritage location in 2010 as the British nomination. Throughout Sunderland there are now banners attached to lamp posts proclaiming the project.
13.40. The BP garage was out of Daily Mail's and had not hot coffee and the deli sandwich and salad bar is only a weekday operation or was closed by lunch on This day, despite being a match day, I crossover passing the Albion pub and into Roker Avenue, along street of terraced housing and of scattered local shops. I have driven along this road from time to time, but not often and never walked so it was interesting to come across two groups of properties, two stories in height where there were six separate door bells and in one instance six separate security alarms. This sheeted rooming houses with some common facilities, perhaps for students, or other singles and where the bells and security was necessary to prevent unauthorised individuals gaining entry, or one lot of students having to look after the friends or callers of others. This took me back to a similar property at Balham used by activists in the peace movement in the 1960's. It was not a commune but a shared dwelling house so when the likes of me called without having made a prior arrangement as the guest of someone in particular it created problems for the others who might be engaged in other activities. There was a newsagents but again they were sold out of the newspaper. I decided to go back to the car rather than continue along the road which led directly to the stadium and check the sports news on he radio and have a further look at the new paper until 14.15ish as it had started to rain heavily.
14.15 It was as made my way to the ground past an Italian run take away which I have used in the past for its kebab with salad that I noticed the newsagent next door and it had a pile of Daily Mails.. On reach the ground I resisted to take a look at the new 50 meter aquatics centre which is a multi million pound to develop swimming in the region as the first Olympic and World Swimming and diving centre between Leeds and Scotland. There is a celebration opening next week to enable the citizens of Sunderland see the latest sporting addition to their community but which ahs also cast doubt on the future of the Leisure facility in the centre of town, especially as the Ice Skating rink has also closed.
14.30 I enjoyed a cup of coffee noting that for the same cost of £1.50 I could buy a packet of ground coffee from Columbia or Java.
16,50 I will remember this match for three things, The cold and I was reminded of my hesitancy about season ticket renewals, reinforced by a poor game which we should have won, as the two goals they scored were due to our sloppiness, The memory was the almost continuous banter between the Sunderland and Man City fans who it was evidently enjoyed themselves thoroughly regardless of the match. There is a special body between supporters which is unusual and goes back to the day at the old Man City stadium, between Sunderland were but relegated and a vast following went to show their loyalty and continuing support, many in fancy dress. We were relegated and as a mark of respect a large number of city fans had stayed behind and sang and clapped their support and genuine best wishes. Sunderland is one of the few grounds where those supporters who like to sing and shout can buy tickets together in an area adjacent to the visiting fans.
17.20 Newcastle were playing Portsmouth and the match was being shown on Satanta at 17.15, My priority was hot tomato soup and bread and unpacking the groceries. It was 17.30 before I was able to settle. It was un goalless first half and with the warmth in and outside my body I went to sleep for most of the second half, waking with advertise before the after match comments week learnt it had been a 0.0 draw. Next week it is the big one as Sunderland visit St James and which is being shown by Sky at lunch time.
19.45 My sleep inducing inner warmth was in part cause by three pieces of Kentucky fried kitchen, and some chips, first for several weeks. It was time to watch for the first time Britain's Got Talent, As with American Idol and the British equivalent I do not find the talentless wannabees amusing, but embarrassing humiliating, degrading. Fortunately this time there appears to be less and a greater concentration on those with ability, potential and gifted, The most outstanding came at he end, an overweight thirteen year old who looked terrified and admitted that he had been bullied on the council estate where they lived because of his voice. What emerged was perhaps the most moving, boy soprano voice I have ever heard. There was also a contortionist who did the most amazing things with her body who is studying to be a lawyer and young girl with a dog who performed like no other animal ever. There was a humorist impressionist from Hull who spent a lifetime in clubs who was wanting a little more exposure to impress his children and received a standing ovation and four polished classical trained girls with electric instruments who also impressed.
21.00. Two unplanned programmes followed which altered my evening. The first was a one off concert for a charity called Heart and Stroke Endeavour held at on the Wintershall estate near Guildford at a lake with a band created for the event called Band du Lac and where among those performing as leads with the band were Eric Clapton, Brian Taylor, Kate Melua, Andy Fairweather Low, Ringo Star Chris Barber, and the Drifters. Subsequently research revealed that this may have been the last performance of the charity event although it was said to have taken place regularly over the previous two decades. I can find no other about previous events or the charity which is odd and will seek to find more.
23.00 There was then the event which led to losing the writing of that evening. This was the programme about how Hollywood exploited several young actresses because of their on screen sexual potency although the projection was modest by the past and present standards. In cat it can be said that the twentieth century was the era of greatest human hypocrisy given the mass exterminations of peoples, the acquisition of vast personal and corporate wealth amidst horrendous levels of poverty and diseases and with the knowledge, power and finances became available, It was also a time of a new order of slavery was introduced. I then wrote for several hours only to over record work which had been accidentally deleted, I went to bed around 3 am.
Sunday 8 am I decided to approach the day's writing differently form recent weeks and write about Mae West and her sayings and then watch the film of Marie Antoinette which was of sumptuous colourful decadence. I had coffee with marmalade toasts.
12.00 I decided on lunch and put on the oven but forgot to put in the three lamb chops so it was after one before they were enjoyed. Two packets of vegetables followed around 2pm. There was a glass of wine from a new bottle of red.
18.00 I remained tired throughout the afternoon and for the second day in succession went soundly to sleep while watching football missing Manchester United's two goals which won the game, finished Arsenals hopes of the championship and probably secured for Man U.
18.30 I watched on BBC I Dr Who in Pompeii where I have visited twice in 1965 and 2001. It was a clever idea giving the Doctor the choice of saving the planet or being the catalyst for the Volcano explosion and which by the rules of the Time Lord he had no choice but to be consistent with history. It is a nice touch in keeping with the times that two adult of similar and attractive appearances can have a close relationship without sexuality.
20.00 Foyle's War has a Merchant Ivory quality over its beautifully paced two hours recapturing the feel of the home war front without its explicit fear and horror. We understand the predicament of the characters, without them creating further trauma for us. This episode focussed on the psychological impact of the war with one escaped and injured prisoner of war returning home, uncertain of his position after four years and fearful when he discovers a German POW working his farm and having a warm friendship with his wife and son who cannot remember him, a former evacuee runs away from his father to where he found rural solace from the horror of witnessing his mother's death and the reactions of others to the bombing and affects of war. There is the predicament of a pilot with complex post traumatic stress and a Jewish doctor whose believes his family has perished in a concentration camp while he had avoid beings sent to the ghetto having been at a conference in another land when Germany invaded.
22 00 The successor to Spitting image is more hard hitting than I remember and will offend not just those who have been included. I am certain one will be Al Fayed. I am not sure if the joke about Mrs Beckham has also gone its course and can sustain a series. Ok you can now add a moving body to the faces but the jokes have to be good and original. I did laugh though sometimes with guilt.
22.45 The South Bank Show Lord Bragg was on the South and North banks of the Thames for this evening's fix on the literary world of London drawing room and East end migrant. Have all the Jewish folk emigrated to Hampstead and Golders Green?
02.00 I was ready for bed at 2pm but got involved with playing chess having been unable to play for a couple of days after mistaking on a well crated and enjoyable run of some forty seven wins without the hint of hiccup and then the thudding crash of the kind that shakes you up before being able to back behind he wheel.
Monday I awoke with a bright sunshine streaming through the closed curtains at 7 am but knew I was in need of further sleep although it was put the bin out day. I did sleep waking with a dream I remember vividly and wish I did not because it revealed aspects me which I would prefer not to be reminded,. I attended a social function to which I had been invited, but where it was quickly evident everyone hoped I would not accept and the gulf between us was quickly evident. The group in question was related to my former work but I felt it embraced the majority of my life. It is never good to see yourself as see you so early in the day.
10.30. Time to get up properly after some coffee and toast and Reach for the Sky which involves a walk to Smith, calling in for some indigestion tablets and tomatoes on the way back.
10.50 I am still here. I lack get up and go and the weather looked changeable and as it is raining now I would switch to plan B if I had one At I have won two games of Hearts last thing last night and second or third this morning.
16.00 It was not until early afternoon that I made it and then because the weather still looked indifferent I took the vehicle to Asda before making my way to Smiths and then Boots. Now the weather has cleared. It has not been a good food day as a prawn salad did not suffice and I needed more. First there was smoked salmon on toast and then a cheese with herb sandwich which also included a slice of ham with a cup of tea. I have been undertaking project work and will continue working.
17.00 While I worked I watched a Robert Mitcham Raul Walsh psychological Western made in 1947, Pursued in which his family is killed before him because his father had an affair with the woman who brings him up with her son and daughter and. However her husband family do not forget and or forgive and torments the woman's natural son when he grow ups into attempting to kill Mitcham, who kills him in self defence and the same things happens again when a suitor call on the woman's daughter who has always wanted to marry the man brought up as her brother. At first she decides to marry him in order to kill him for the death of her brother and but deep down she still wants him, So it is happy ever after. Alas yes and no because the men who gunned his family come after him and he is about to be strung up when his foster mother and the cause of the feud shoots her husband's brother and this settle the matter.
19.00 the young lad who was bullied with the voice of an angel has appeared on GMTV and on ITV national news. The main item of news on all channels is the accidental death of five young women on a Gap year adventure in Ecuador in which their bus was hit or their but hit a lorry travelling in the opposite direction
#
Hearing transcripts
2 April 2008 - Morning session
Wednesday, 2nd April 2008(10.00 am) SUMMING-UP (continued) (Jury present) LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Good morning, members of the
jury. A few points from yesterday and the day before just to clear up. Lopes Borges went on to the embankment road at 40 to 50 kph which is 25 to 30 mph. Burrell joined the Royal service in 1986 not, as I said, 1996. Mohamed Al Fayed was not the only person to whom Diana mentioned her fears in the summer of 1997. Melissa Henning said Dodi told her that Diana had expressed fears to him of an accident when the boys were not with her. Malibu: I have not referred to all of the evidence relating to this property and Dodi and Diana's interest in going there. Evidence of interest in this property
is said to be indicative of the permanence of Dodi and Diana's relationship and I remind you of that. Landmines: I passed quickly over the dossier that Diana had prepared. Simone Simmons told us that Diana was preparing a report that she was going to call "Profiting out of misery", and this, she said, was going to name names and show that the British Government and public figures were profiting from the proliferation of landmines in places like Angola and Bosnia. Top of the list of culprits would be the SIS. Incidentally, I think I also told you that Nicholas Soames went on Panorama when he criticised Diana and, in fact, it was not Panorama, it was Newsnight. The final point that I mention is this: on Monday, I referred to the evidence of Simone Simmons that the Duchess of York had received nasty letters from Prince Philip. I mentioned that we heard undisputed evidence from the Duchess of York in which she denied receiving any such letters. All that is correct. However, I mistakenly said that Michael Cole had also said that the Duchess had received such letters. In fact, Cole made different points about the Duchess of York. He said on radio and in a statement to the police that the Duchess of York had discussed with Diana fears that they would be killed. He also said that after the death of Diana, the Duchess wrote to the Queen to ask for forgiveness. The Duchess said she had no recollection of discussing any fears with Diana and denied that she had written a letter to the Queen of the type described by Cole. Again, that evidence was read to you because it was not disputed by any of the interested persons in these inquests. Cole stuck to his story when questioned, saying that sources had told him that the Duchess had written such a letter to the Queen. It is for you to decide what you accept. Well, members of the jury, the next heading which I have to deal with is the paparazzi.
I turn to the evidence from the paparazzi themselves. In your jury bundle you have the chart at tab 29 and the timeline of the paparazzi movements. As I have said, only one of them, Stephane Darmon, gave live evidence to you. The others refused to do so and the statements that they had made at various times were introduced before you by other witnesses. You will remember Mr Croxford indicated that the issues that he was most anxious to explore were their conduct on the final journey and whether there were more photographs taken by them than we have seen. You may think that the answer to the second question is that there may well have been. Darmon was employed by the Gamma agency and was riding his Honda motorbike for Rat. He told you that they went to Le Bourget earlier in the day. In the journey from the airport they lost sight of the Mercedes. They went to the Ritz and then followed the couple to Rue Arsene Houssaye. Rat had a fight with a bodyguard. Then they followed the couple back to the r Ritz. He saw Henri Paul outside the hotel. He seemed very joyful. When he saw him, his eyes and the way he acted reminded Darmon of Darmon's father, who was an alcoholic. It was pointed out to him, however, that he had not mentioned this in any of the statements that he had made to the French police and magistrate. Darmon saw the decoy journey round the square. Later Rat told him that the couple had left from the back of the Ritz. Rat said that he had been told by Odekerken. That is consistent with the mobile phone data that you have heard about. Darmon and Rat drove off from the front of the Ritz There were three to four motorcycles and maybe two to three scooters and several cars. As they approached the Crillon Hotel in the Place de la Concorde, Rat was talking on his mobile phone to a photographer who was close to the Mercedes. At the lights at the junction with the Champs-Elysees, the Mercedes waited for somespace in front and then took off like a plane. Darmon followed the Mercedes. He overtook all the cars, including Odekerken's, which had been at the lights. He did not agree with Bonnin that flash photographs were being taken of the passengers in the Mercedes while they were stationary at the lights. He drove on to the expressway. He was doing 80 to 100
kph, that is 50 to 60 miles per hour. He claimed that the Mercedes disappeared from view, but said that there was no one between him and the Mercedes. No one else was close to them. Members of the jury, his bike has a potential top speed of 174 kilometres per hour. That is 109 miles per hour, but he was, he said, a professional driver who could not afford to take risks. He slowed down. He was joined by a group of photographers who he saw in his mirror and some passers-by. He told the police that he was going at 60 kph,37 mph. He was at the top of the slope to the underpass, "... the whole group was there, four or five cars mingling with the traffic, about three motorbikes and two scooters". He claimed he had never said this and that there must have been a misunderstanding, although he had signed the document recording this. He said that these people had got there later. When he got into the tunnel, the horn of the Mercedes was sounding and there was a lot of smoke. He parked his bike 10 to 15 metres away. He and Rat went towards the car to rescue the occupants. Rat opened the door and then the others arrived. The photographs that were taken obviously demonstrate that this cannot be right He said at least ten photographers were there.Certainly more than those who were there when the police arrived. Rat gave him the film he had taken and Darmon gave it to the police. Two people on a Yamaha motorbike left after the photographs were taken. Benhamou and others left the tunnel with the film. So much for Darmon Romuald Rat: his statements were introduced by Mr Carpenter. In his first statement of 31st August, he dealt with events at Le Bourget and explained that they lost the Mercedes on the way back when the driver accelerated suddenly. He said that he had had a dispute with a French security officer at Rue Arsene Houssaye. Back at the Ritz, Henri Paul was keeping them informed of what was going on. He described the dummy run. He saw the photographers at the front of the Ritz leaving and realised the couple had left by the rear exit. At Concorde, he saw the Mercedes. There were four or five cars behind it at the lights, a motorbike and a scooter. When the lights changed, the Mercedes sped off to the embankment. He said none of them caught up with the Mercedes because of the speed of the car. He said "We tried to catch up with them. I was among the leading pursuers". They carried on, slowing down, and then saw the Mercedes in the tunnel. He claimed that he got onlookers away from the car and then went back to the car and opened the door. That is plainly untrue when you look at the photographs that were taken. Members of the jury, you may want to consider whether the conduct of any individual in the tunnel after the crash demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the lives of others in pursuit of a photograph, and, if so, whether that helps you in determining what was the nature of the pursuit before the crash. Rat claimed that he felt for Diana's pulse and said that a doctor would be arriving. A doctor's car arrived and then he saw someone with an oxygen mask. He claimed that it was only then that he began to take photographs. You know that that is not true. He said that he did not understand why the Mercedes suddenly drove so quickly; "... a normal chauffeur knows that it is not the way that you should shake someone off. He took too many risks". If that assessment of his is accurate, you will want to consider whether it must also apply to any chasing group. His camera and film were taken by the police. In his second statement, he said that no one had taken any photographs whilst the Mercedes was in motion. At Concorde, he had been putting his crash helmet back .. using his mobile phone. He saw journalists run away from the scene of the crash, so it was possible that some films were taken away. He called Odekerken after he lost sight of the Mercedes on the expressway. That call, members of the jury, is timed at 17 minutes past midnight. In a statement on 30th September 1997, he said that he spoke to Henri Paul several times outside the Ritz. They spoke about cameras. He was surprised that Henri Paul spoke to them. At one point Rat was with Langevin and one of them said Henri Paul must have been drinking. He was really strange. No mention of that was made in the first statement, taken before publicity was given to the suggestion that Henri Paul was over the limit. He said that none of the photographers had vehicles which could have kept up with the Mercedes Mr Read confirmed that that was not the case. Serge Benhamou made his first statement on 4thSeptember. He was at the Ritz with his Honda scooter. Veres joined him on a Hexagon scooter after Benhamou telephoned him. He went to Rue Arsene Houssaye and then back to the Ritz. He saw Henri Paul there. Henri Paul was cheerful and laughing. He had never behaved like that before and usually ignored them. He said to some people that he must have been drinking. He said "All his reactions led me to believe that". The couple left in the Mercedes and sped off. He caught up in the Rue de Rivoli. The Mercedes jumped red light at Concorde. Benhamou was very close at that stage, like everyone that was following. They all jumped the light. Then he saw the rear lights of the vehicles following the Mercedes. He said, "I was able to follow the convoy from a distance. As they were starting to drive quickly, I could not keep up with themon my scooter". The driver of the Mercedes had wanted to shake them off, but he had not heard him say that He saw that Henri Paul was at the wheel at Concorde. "I saw the pack turn left in front of Crillon. Pursuing 16 photographers also set off very quickly". He drove at 17 60 kph, that is 37 miles per hour, on the expressway He lost "the convoy". He went to the Place de l'Alma and later noticed cars stacking up. He went on foot into the underpass and saw the crashed car. He took photographs. He called Veres at 25 minutes past midnight to ask him to come. Benhamou left on his
scooter. He left his film with M Dufour who developed it. Christian Martinez made his first statement on 31st August. Serge Arnal told him that Diana was in Paris. He met Arnal at the Ritz. Martinez was on foot Arnal had his black Fiat Uno. They went to Rue Arsene Houssaye and then followed them to the Ritz. They waited at the front. When the couple left, they left as well and saw them at Concorde. He saw a 4x4 and a black Peugeot 205 behind the Mercedes. The Mercedes pulled away very quickly at the lights and left everyone standing. 10 Martinez and Arnal followed at a distance, like the two cars ahead of them. Darmon and Rat must have been in front, but he could not see them. When they got to the underpass, they saw the crashed car. They parked outside the tunnel and came back. The first on the scene were Rat, Arnal and Martinez. He took photographs and his film was taken by the police. He said he thought that "Henri Paul was going much too fast maybe he swerved to avoid a vehicle that was travelling very slowly in front of him. Then he lost control of the car". If you think that is what happened, you may like to ask how Martinez could have known that. Arnal was going flat out, he estimated at 100 to
110 kph, 60 to 70 miles per hour. Some photographers left the tunnel. They were young men, four or five of them. He had tried to telephone the emergency services Some of his photographs were clearly taken before the emergency services arrived. In his second statement, on 1st September, he said that he had in fact left his telephone in his car. He had not tried to telephone the emergency services. On the expressway he had not seen any vehicles apart from the Mercedes they were following. In a further statement, on 1st September, he said that a colleague, Guizard, telephoned them to say that the couple were leaving by the rear exit. In a statement made on 10th October 1997, he said he saw the Mercedes at traffic lights by the Crillon in Concorde. Around it was Guizard in his light 205, Ker in his 4x4, Benhamou on his scooter and Chassery in his black 205. He thought the Mercedes was going to Rue Arsene Houssaye. He said "When you have 25 photographers with flash-guns behind you, you do not decide to do something unusual or exceptional". Mr Carpenter agreed that it was a strong inference from the photographs that he must have been in a car that was very close to the Mercedes at the time of the crash and that there was evidence that he had managed to get film out of the tunnel. So much for Martinez. Serge Arnal gave his first statement on 31st August. He explained how he met up with Martinez, went to Rue Arsene Houssaye and then back to the Ritz. They saw the dummy run. Later he thought that the couple might have left by the rear exit. They left to try and pick them up in Concorde. He saw Odekerken's 4x4, a scooter and a motorbike with two people on it, Rat and Darmon. He followed them at a distance. As they turned onto the expressway he saw the Mercedes. It accelerated as soon as it turned right. It sped into the first tunnel. Arnal lost sight of it. His colleagues were still in front. He slowed down. He saw the crashed Mercedes in the next tunnel. He drove past it and stopped. by the time he got out, people were around the car. He telephoned the emergency services on 112. In fact, he telephoned directory inquiries, 12, at 23 minutes past midnight. Ten minutes or so after he arrived, he got his camera out. That cannot be true. In his first eight photographs, no other people can be seen. They were obviously taken very soon after the crash had happened. On 1st September, he said that several of his colleagues got away before the police came and some of them had taken photographs. In a later statement, he said that he had called his editor. The call is timed at 27 minutes past midnight. Alain Guizard was the editor of the Angeli agency He gave his first statement on 3rd September. He learned that Diana would be coming to Paris from Sardinia. He went to the airport in his grey/blue Peugeot 205. He went to the Ritz and saw his photographers there. He went off for dinner. He came back to the Ritz, where he saw Martinez. They split up. Later Martinez telephoned him and said that the couple would leave by the rear exit. Guizard pulled forward in his car in Rue Cambon so he could help his photographers with the direction of the car. He followed the car to Concorde where he let Arnal pull in front of him. There were some flashes at this point. This is confirmed by the witness, Bonnin, whose evidence was read to you ' You may think that photographs were being taken. If so, you have not seen them
The Mercedes set off very quickly from the lights, leaving two motorcycles and two cars in its wake Benhamou was on his scooter. Guizard decided to return home, but took the same route as the other vehicles. He drove at 60 to 80 kph; 37 to 50 mph. He saw the crashed Mercedes. He saw Martinez and Arnal. He was not given any film. He did not take any photographs. He went away to Dani Angeli's house and then returned to the scene. He said that when he had been at the back of the Ritz, Benhamou said that Henri Paul had been drinking. He had not noticed anything about Henri Paul himself. The only reason Benhamou gave was that Henri Paul was in a different mood from usual. The telephone records show that he had telephoned Martinez at 18 minutes past midnight and the Alpha agency in England at 33 minutes past midnight. David Odekerken gave his first statement on 4th September. He said that he was in partnership with Chassery and a third man who was on holiday in Corsica. That is Salmon. Laurent Sola called Chassery, who called Odekerken, to say that the couple were coming to Le Bourget. Odekerken and Chassery went there, Odekerken in his grey/beige Pajero 4x4, Chassery in his black Peugeot 205. Then they went to the Ritz, then to Rue Arsene Houssaye, then back to the Ritz. Henri Paul spoke to the photographers outside the Ritz. Chassery asked Odekerken to join him at the back of the hotel. Odekerken drove there. He was about to park when he noticed that what he called "the procession" had set off. He said he meant the Mercedes and the motorcycles and the cars of the journalists following. Chassery went to get into is vehicle. The convoy set off. They lost the convoy and decided to stop work. as they went to Concorde, he saw some camera flashes
after the Champs-Elysees. He saw the procession travelling quickly. Chassery went towards the Champs-Elysees. Odekerken decided to go home along the expressway. In the tunnel, he saw the crashed Mercedes. Photographers were taking pictures. He parked outside the tunnel. He telephoned Chassery. Odekerken went into the tunnel and took some pictures. Chassery arrived. Odekerken and Chassery then left. Odekerken went home and then met Sola with Chassery. They gave their film to Sola. They developed it. When they learned that Diana had died, the photographs were not to be used. In an interview on 2nd October 1997, he said that when the Mercedes was at the lights, he saw Arnal's car following. He was on the phone to Rat at the time, who wanted to know where the "cortege" was. There were calls at 19, 20 and 21 minutes past midnight. They had been exchanging information all day. There was a scooter at the lights and Guizard's 205. There were other cars which he could not identify. Rat's bike overtook him after the Mercedes pulled away very fast from the lights. Fabrice Chassery made his first statement on 4th September. Sola called him and he went to the airport where he met Odekerken. On the way back, the Range Rover effected a sudden, even dangerous, he said, manoeuvre, going from the extreme left-hand lane to take an exit. They followed that vehicle, which led them away from the Mercedes, then to the Ritz and Rue Arsene Houssaye, back to the Ritz. Henri Paul spoke to the photographers outside the Ritz. Chassery thought that the couple would leave from the back. He went there and then telephoned Odekerken. The couple left in the Mercedes. Chassery and Odekerken decided to end there. They separated Odekerken telephoned him to say that the Mercedes had crashed. Chassery drove to the tunnel. Chassery took photographs. The police arrived. Chassery and Odekerken left. Chassery called Sola. Sola told him to bring the photographs. Chassery called Odekerken and they both went to Sola. Then all three went to Angeli to develop the photographs. In a statement on 5th September, he said that in the evening at the Ritz, Henri Paul seemed happy, had a laugh and spoke to them. Normally he was serious, not really friendly and did not speak to the photographers. Pierre Suu was on a maroon BMW motorbike driven by Jerko Tomic. He made his first statement on 31st August. He and Tomic had followed the Mercedes from Rue Arsene Houssaye to the Ritz. They missed the departure of the Mercedes from Rue Cambon and followed the wrong vehicles to Rue Arsene Houssaye again. There they learned about the accident and went to the tunnel. A security cordon was in place. Later he followed the ambulance to the hospital. He made a statement to Metropolitan Police officers in 2006. He said he knew James Andanson. Andanson was not in Paris that night. He was not the kind of person to go unnoticed. He said some film had been taken out of the tunnel. One film belonged to Chassery. Another, taken by Martinez, was given to Guizard, who threw it in the river. Pierre Hounsfield was driving a black Volkswagen Golf. He made his first statement on 18th September 1997. He worked for the Sipa Agency, in a pool with Suu and sometimes Arsov. He joined Suu and Arsov at Arsene Houssaye. They then followed the couple to the Ritz. Henri Paul spoke to them. Benhamou said, "It is strange, this man never speaks to us and never smiles at us. Something must be happening". By this, he meant that the couple would leave by the rear exit. One toeless, Hounsfield, Suu and Arsov missed them. It was agreed Suu would follow the Mercedes and the Range Rover which left from the front. Hounsfield met Suu at Arsene Houssaye. They learned of the accident and went to the tunnel. In June 2006, Hounsfield spoke to Metropolitan Police officers. He said he had seen a radar camera near the Alma Tunnel on the night. He said it was by the entrance to the underpass, by the trees separating the slip road from the expressway. It was a tripod-type and there was a marked police car by it with two uniformed officers. No one else ever says they saw it and we heard undisputed evidence in the form of a report from Gigou that there was no speed camera at work on that route that night. You will recollect that his evidence also dealt with the suggestion that the French authorities had disabled CCTV cameras to ensure that the journey was not filmed. Hounsfield was asked which direction he was coming from and then realised that his route meant he would not have passed the camera. He said he wondered if his mind was playing tricks. Nikola Arsov was the rider of a white BMW motorcycle. His first statement was made on 31st August. He went to the Ritz. He was there when the couple returned from Rue Arsene Houssaye. Later he followed the Range Rover from the front of the hotel. He stopped after a time and was making his way back to the agency when he saw Darmon by the Alma Tunnel. He stopped. He went and took some photographs. They did not come out because he said his flash was not plugged in. The police were already there. Stephane Cardinale was the driver of a white Citroen AX. He made a statement on 18th September 1997. He went to the Ritz Hotel. He was joined by his colleague, Langevin. He missed the departure from the rear of the hotel; he followed the decoy vehicles. He heard the news at Rue Arsene Houssaye, went to the tunnel, but a security cordon was in place. Jack Langevin was the driver of a grey Volkswagen Golf. His first statement was made on 31st August. He got to the Ritz at about 11 pm. He took the photographs you have seen at the back of the Ritz. The Mercedes left. He went to his car but did not manage to follow the Mercedes. A car that might have been a Peugeot 205 seemed to be following it. He gave up. On his way to a friend's house, he saw people blocking the entrance to the tunnel. He went to look. The emergency services were there. He took a few pictures. He made a statement on 1st September. He said that Henri Paul had been merry and showing off. Some photographers said that he was not in his normal state and that he had been drinking. He had not mentioned this on 31st August.
Laslo Veres was on a Piaggio scooter. His first statement was on 31st August. He had been to Rue Arsene Houssaye and followed the couple back to the Ritz. He heard that the couple had left from the back exit. He stayed in the Place Vendome until after the crash had happened. He can be seen on CCTV film in the square after the crash. As a result of a telephone call, he went to the tunnel. The police let him through and he took some pictures.He made a statement on 22nd October 1997. He said that Henri Paul had spoken to them outside the Ritz. After three sentences, Veres claimed, he realised that Henri Paul was saying incoherent things. Henri Paul spoke to Rat for two to three minutes. He had not said that before. You will remember that Rat said he had spoken to Henri Paul about cameras and Henri Paul had noted references in his notebook. So much then for the paparazzi. I now turn to the reconstruction evidence and, in this regard, you will, I think, find it helpful to have available the plan in your bundle at page 10, which perhaps can be put up on the screen, and also to have available the photographs in your bundle at page 11, but I think it is the plan that we want to look at the moment. Members of the jury, you heard from three experts: Messrs Read, Jennings and Searle. There was a considerable message of agreement between them. None of them came on the scene until many years after the event, so they were at some disadvantage Further, the initial investigation had taken place on foreign soil, under somewhat different procedures from ours. questions arise such as whether everything relevant was collected and examined by the French and whether everything that might have been relevant was recorded. Tony Read has spent 28 years in the traffic division of the Metropolitan Police. He has completed courses on HGV, PSV and motorcycles. He has a City and Guilds in Road Accident Investigation and is a member of the Institute of Road Traffic Investigators. He first became involved in this case in the spring of 2004. There were several areas of agreement between the experts. Members of the jury, it is important to keep these in the forefront of your minds as they are important reference points when you come to consider the eye witness evidence on the issues that are in dispute. The eight areas of agreement are:
(1) the collision between the Mercedes and the white Fiat Uno occurred in the vicinity of the entrance to the tunnel. However, it is not agreed precisely where the impact took place, what was the nature of the impact and what the course was of the two vehicles before impact. Those three matters were the principal are as of disagreement. Continuing with the agreed matters, they are:(2) Red plastic debris came from the rear light cover on the left-hand side of the Uno. The light cover could be dated as having been manufactured between May 1983 and September1989. (3) Clear plastic debris came from the front indicator cover of the Mercedes. (4) White paint on the right front wing and front area of the front right door of the Mercedes match that of a white Fiat Uno of the period May 1983 to September 1989. (5) A smear of black plastic on the Mercedes was consistent with having come from the rear bumper on a Fiat made at the same time. (6) No one was wearing a seat-belt and wearing one would have increased the prospect of survival. Searle went rather further than this in evidence, saying they would have survived. (7) The speed of the Mercedes was 65 miles per hour at impact, plus or minus 5 mph. The speed limit for the road was 31 miles per hour in British terms.
The speed of the Mercedes, when it collided with the Fiat, was also between 60 mph and 70 mph. (8) There were no defects in the Mercedes that contributed to the collision. Read told us it would be almost impossible to stage the collision in a pre-arranged manner because the effect on the slower lighter vehicle, ie the Fiat, would be likely to be much greater than on the larger heavier vehicle, ie the Mercedes. This was at a time, of course, when attention was concentrated on the Fiat as being part of a staged accident plan. You may think things have moved on. Also, it would be even more
difficult to stage the collision had there been a safety vehicle following the Mercedes, eg the Range Rover. Also, a nine-and-a-half-year-old Fiat would be a very poor choice of vehicle to knock the Mercedes off its path. When questioned about possibilities, Read did not disagree that a blocking vehicle could have been involved. However, as you know, there is no forensic scientific evidence to support such a possibility. The reason the collision was to serious was because the Mercedes collided at such a high speed with one of the pillars of the underpass, causing a very high-energy impact. Members of the jury, you may think it was a complete matter of chance whether the Mercedes hit the wall or one of the pillars. At this stage, it may help you to turn to the plan at tab 10 of your bundle. You will see there the marks. Now, as to the marks on the road, the single mark was made by a revolving tyre slipping sideways. I think you are familiar now with where the single mark is on the picture. The double marks were made by the rear wheels. These three marks were all left by the Mercedes.
The single tyre mark indicates a movement to the left and then to the right. There is then a movement to the left, to avoid hitting the right-hand wall. The increasing severity of the marks is typical, said
Mr Read, of a driver over-correcting and being unable to control his vehicle. The Mercedes' speed at the entry to the underpass was unlikely to have been significantly in excess of the speed at impact, namely 60 to 70 mph. It is impossible to say whether the Fiat came from the slip road or was on the main carriage way, but if it was on the main carriageway, it would have been visible to the driver of the Mercedes for some time. There was some doubt about whether a vehicle coming on to the main carriageway from the sliproad had the right of way. The position appears to be that under French law it probably did. You may like to bear in mind your experience of standing by that sliproad during the view of the scene last October. Debris would not land on the road at the point of impact but would be carried forward. You know that "throw tests" were carried out and you have the results in your bundle to look at. It was also agreed that the overlap of the vehicles at impact was approximately 17 centimetres. The side of the vehicles came together with a glancing blow. The Fiat was going at a maximum of 40 mph. It did not suffer any second impact, and if it had been going any faster, it would have run into the spinning Mercedes. It could, of course, have been travelling at less than 40 mph.
Mr Read said it generally takes a driver 1 to 1 and a half seconds to perceive and react to a hazard. It will be more if the driver is impaired. But he agreed that there is no ready reckoner for reaction time. If the Mercedes was in the right-hand lane,
the driver would have had to steer to the left when already steering to the left to negotiate the bend. If it was in the left-hand lane, which you may think is suggested by the witnesses, it may have drifted across as a result of speed in negotiating the bend or the driver may have intended to take a straight line into the bend and encroached on the right-hand lane or the Fiat Uno may simply have drifted into the path of the Mercedes. Now the experts were not agreed about the precise point of impact and one of the factors relevant to this was whether the French had identified and picked up all the debris. The French were adamant that they had picked up everything that was relevant, but looking at the photographs, it was suggested that they had not. If you look at page 78, you will see an arrow in the bottom of the photograph pointing to "unmarked lens debris" Absent extra debris, Read put the impact with the Fiat 1.5 metres before the start of the tunnel. With the possible extra debris, he put it at 10 metres before the start of the tunnel. Read thought the impact took place with the Mercedes a bit over into the right-hand carriageway and that the left side of the Fiat was close to the centre line. Jennings agreed with that, but Searle put the impact at the start of the single tyre mark and, therefore, the Mercedes must have been entirely in the left-hand lane. When Read was cross-examined, a video taken in February 1998 was shown and he agreed that there would physically have been no difficulty in driving through the tunnel at 62 miles per hour, but he did not agree that it was commonplace for drivers to go through it at 60 or 70. He agreed that if there had been a blocking vehicle in the left-hand lane and a slow-moving vehicle in the right-hand lane, the driver would really have had
a problem. He agreed that the Mercedes could have travelledthrough the Alexandre III tunnel at 60, 70 or even 80 mph and still have been able to brake, slow down or come off at the sliproad, provided that there was no obstruction such as a motorcycle.
He said the single tyre mark was consistent with previous loss of control and did not signify the point at which loss of control began. He thought this was a classic example of over-reaction to a hazard or a perceived hazard. There was, in his opinion, no evidence to put the Fiat over the centre dividing line at the point of collision. Nor was there evidence of impact between any vehicles other than the one impact between the Mercedes and the Fiat. He said that the issues between him and Searle were very much matters of degree. Jennings agreed that a bright or flashing light could cause a distraction, depending upon (a) the light and (b) where it flashed. A matter you may think of common sense. Jennings agreed with Read about the point of impact with the Fiat: 10 metres before the tunnel if the debris the French did not pick up was attributable to the collision; at the start of the tunnel or a couple of metres before it if not. Either way, the Mercedes' right-hand side would be crossing the centre line or very close to it. Searle had built up an accident investigation team over 25 years. He has investigated over 3,000 collisions. He said that it involved a series of speculations to say the collision took place 10 metres back from the tunnel entrance. In his opinion the impact occurred just before the single tyre mark. He said there were three possible explanations why the Fiat was over the centre line, if it was. They were (1) meandering, (2) overtaking and(3)that it moved deliberately to block the Mercedes. In his view, the road into the tunnel could be safely travelled at 65 miles per hour or even faster.
He agreed that if the unmarked debris that the French had not picked up did come from the collision, it would put the point of impact back but not, in his view, as far as Read had suggested.
He agreed rather reluctantly that alcohol impairs nearly all driving abilities, but concluded with the rather surprising statement that if the driver was over twice the drink-drive limit, he, Searle, was not
persuaded that this had any relevance and you, the jury, should proceed accordingly. This issue was also dealt with by the toxicology experts The main issues on the expert evidence relate to, first, where the impact between the two vehicles occurred. There is a difference between 10 metres before the entrance to the tunnel and the start of the tyre mark 1 metre inside the tunnel, so a maximum of just 11 metres. The Mercedes would have covered that distance in less than half a second. Secondly, whether the Mercedes was in the left-hand lane or at or slightly over the centre line. You may think these points depend upon variables that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine, like whether the French identified all the debris. At the end of the day disputed expert evidence may only take you so far. Of more help, when you come to consider the eye witness evidence, are the various matters on which the experts were agreed. Read said that in common with most road traffic accidents, this collision did not appear to have a single cause. The absence of one or more possible causes might have altered the outcome. He mentioned: driver impairment; distraction by the paparazzi; excessive speed; the presence of another vehicle and the need to take avoiding action; unfamiliarity with the vehicle; challenging road layouts -- meaning a left-hand bend and a dip in the road -- and the stress or the euphoria of the situation. To this is perhaps to be added: distraction of the driver by a flash of light. Read and Searle's evidence may help you when you come to consider the narrative verdict. Let me summarise the arguments about a staged accident. I explained to you at the start of my summing-up why I had decided that there was insufficient evidence for you to be sure that this was unlawful
killing by staged accident. I also explained to you that if you took the view that there is any satisfactory evidence of it at all, you must take it into account as part of the whole of the evidence in deciding whether verdicts 1 to 4, that are available to you, are established to the necessary standard. I also explained that if the evidence as
a whole does not support any of the first four verdicts which I identified, then you are entitled to return an open verdict.
I have commented upon the evidence which was said to point towards a staged crash as I have gone along and you will appreciate the need to examine it very carefully to see whether or not, .. examination, it in fact amounts to anything at all. You are, of course, the judge of the facts and it is only fair that
I remind you, without comment, of some, not all, of the features of how staged accident is put. It includes the following: Diana had expressed fears for her safety before the crash. See, for example, the Mishcon and Burrell notes. She had mentioned the possibly of a car accident in both notes Could strained relations with some members of the Royal Family or her involvement with the anti-landmine campaign or her involvement with Dodi and the Al Fayed family have prompted some person or persons to decide to kill, injure or scare her in some way? Were her telephone conversations monitored by some person or persons and, if so, were they prepared to do her harm and did they learn of her plans in this way? Are there features of the crash itself which point towards a staged accident, in other words, evidence of a blocking vehicle in front of the Mercedes and a motorbike and a bright light behind, used to disorientate the driver? Was a flashing light of this kind a technique used by MI6 -- see the evidence of Tomlinson -- and could rogue MI6 officers have decided to use it here? Was Henri Paul used by the plotters and duped into playing his part, and if so, was this possible because of some connection he had with the intelligence services? Does Tomlinson support that and is that the explanation for money in his physical possession on the night and in bank accounts? Does such a connection provide the explanation for those periods of time on the night of the crash when we don't know where he was? Are unsatisfactory features of the toxicological evidence explained by interference with Henri Paul's samples, which was done so as to make it look as if alcohol was really behind the crash, when that was not in fact the case?
I would now like just to summarise the evidence of gross negligence as that may be of some assistance. Let's take first Henri Paul. The complaint is essentially that he drove excessively fast when knowing that he had drunk enough alcohol to affect his ability to drive safely and that he was racing to get away fromt he paparazzi. Lucard said Henri Paul challenged the paparazzi at
the rear of the Ritz that they would not catch him and then set off at great speed. Lopes Borges said the Mercedes went off very fast
from the Champs-Elysees lights with other vehicles inpursuit.Bonnin said the passenger on the scooter was taking repeated flash photographs when they were stationary at the lights and the Mercedes sped off as soon as it could after being held up.
Darmon described it as "taking off like a plane". It overtook Bonnin, going "very, very fast". At the Alexandre III tunnel, Hackett saw a vehicle behind going at least 70 mph. When it overtook him,
it was going left to right and swerving. It was being hindered by a number of motorbikes. Mr Le Ny thought the driver of the Mercedes was "crazy". It was going very fast. He was surprised and shocked at its speed, but made no other criticism of the way in which it was being driven. Mrs Le Ny described the speed as "very fast" and Mr Catheline at just over 60 mph; Ronssin, 75 to 80 mph; Gary Dean described the speed as "inordinate", 70 to 80 mph. It was being driven too fast and in a very dangerous manner. Remy put it at 87 to 94, but was he describing the Mercedes? When the car overtook him, it made a noise like the roar of an aircraft at take-off.
Partouche described the speed as very fast with the engine revving and a motorcycle tailgating. Gooroovadoo's estimate of speed corresponded to the back calculation of the reconstruction experts. He said he hardly had time to say to himself that the driver was mad to drive that fast. You must first decide which of this evidence you accept and then you must ask whether you are sure
Henri Paul's driving was so bad as to cross the very high threshold that I have described. An argument in his favour is that while he drove fast, the evidence does not suggest that he was driving inordinately faster than others who use that road and there is little complaint about the manner of his driving, other than excessive speed. Turning to gross negligence on the part of the following vehicles: essentially, the argument is that the paparazzi were racing the Mercedes, having taken up Henri Paul's challenge that they would not catch him, that they did so in such a manner as to create the risk of a fatal crash and that individual drivers drove or rode very close to the Mercedes, thereby limiting its freedom of movement and restricting Henri Paul's options at the critical time. Was there conduct not only negligent but also so grossly negligent as to cross the very high threshold I have described? You will need first to decide which vehicles were involved in the chase and the manner of their driving in the course of it. There is evidence that the paparazzi continually accelerated to follow the Mercedes when it must have been plain Henri Paul intended to outrun them and when he had warned them they would not catch him. There is evidence of a number of paparazzi vehicles following the Mercedes to the Place de la Concorde, that a number was still behind it at the Alexandre III tunnel and on the approach to the Alma Tunnel. This was a challenging urban road environment at night, with the sliproad from the right, the bend to theleft and
the incline into the tunnel. Hackett referred to two or three motorcycles riding very close in the Alexandre III tunnel. He was scared when he saw them. Partouche recalled a compact group of vehicles, including motorcycles just behind the Mercedes, and Gooroovadoo remembered one motorcycle following very closely.
There is also evidence from Darmon that after the crash some of the paparazzi were more intent on taking the best picture than helping the injured, evidence which might throw some light on their state of mind when driving to the tunnel. Again, members of the jury, you must first decide what evidence you accept as to what the following drivers were actually doing and then you must decide
whether it amounted to gross negligence to the high level I have described and was a cause of the collision and the death of Dodi and Diana. These are two significant hurdles. Let me deal with them one by one. First, you will need to be sure about what was actually going on at the critical time. I have summarised the main features of the eye witness evidence, together with that of the paparazzi. I have mentioned that rarely in connection with any fast- moving event does one find an absolutely consistent account from different witnesses. It may be possible for you to disentangle from all the evidence a sequence of events and the involvement of identifiable following vehicles, such that you can be sure of where precisely any vehicle was and the part it played, if any, in causing the crash. But where there is such disagreement about the numbers of vehicles close to the Mercedes, whether they were cars or motorbikes, the numbers of people on them or in them and the parts they played, you may find that difficult. It is striking that even witnesses who had essentially the same line of view give different accounts. Obvious examples are Partouche and Gooroovadoo and the Cathelines and the ....(/)
No comments:
Post a Comment